The result was redirect to John Rook#Hit Parade Hall of Fame. Redirecting on the advice of the nominator and the only !voter. Consider this closed as nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Article on non-notable "hall of fame" created by banned user. The only Google news hit is for a press release from the company behind this from March 2010, wherein it states that this is just an idea in "start up phase." Delete until such time as this hall of fame achieves real world notability, if ever. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Courcelles ( talk) 00:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The article Maricar Reyes is protected from creation due to frequent recreations and vandalisms. User:Madapaka created the Maricar Reyes (actress) instead. Try moving the page to Maricar Reyes, you'll see that the destination article is protected. Mageclansoftheeast ( talk) 16:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 06:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
A consulting company but no evidence of notability is offered. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 06:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Since no-one has demonstrated evidence that there are separate sources thatd escribe the subject separately from the band and notability is not inherited, the best policy based arguments are the delete one. Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Not nearly enough significant coverage seen. — fetch · comms 02:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep with leave to speedy renominate. I think we're done here. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Reason Pinner458 ( talk) 23:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
i am almost positive that wikipedia has one actress listed as two seperate people, a Laura Allen and a Laura Harris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Harris so i would appreciate if someone could somehow confirm the correct name and then delete the other one, IMDB has them listed as seperate people aswell so you may find it hard to prove..... anyway thanks
Speedy close - There is no evidence provided that the two articles represent the same person, and even if they were, that would be a reason to
WP:MERGE the articles. --
Whpq (
talk)
14:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
Speedy close. Completely groundless argument, independent referencing.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
close. They are not the same actress. Tangurena ( talk) 15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Groundless AfD, notable subject ( non-admin closure) mono 18:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Reason Pinner458 ( talk) 23:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
i am almost positive that wikipedia has one actress listed as two seperate people, a Laura Allen and a Laura Harris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Allen so i would appreciate if someone could somehow confirm the correct name and then delete the other one, IMDB has them listed as seperate people aswell so you may find it hard to prove..... anyway thanks
Speedy close - There is no evidence provided that the two articles represent the same person, and even if they were, that would be a reason to
WP:MERGE the articles. --
Whpq (
talk)
14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
Speedy close. Completely groundless argument, independent referencing.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
close. They are not the same actress. Tangurena ( talk) 15:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Laura Allen and Laura Harris are NOT the same person. The info at imdb.com is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstone2004 ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Puppy (album). Courcelles ( talk) 00:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 00:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If anyone wants the text to prepare a merge, just let me know. Courcelles ( talk) 00:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
For the same reasons out lined with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash (DC animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonder Woman (DC animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade (Marvel animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Strange (Marvel animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (DC animated universe), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.H.I.E.L.D. (Marvel animated universe). This article is a creation of original research that pulls information from various Wikipedia articles on comic book characters. Specifically:
Things that are worth noting here:
This, as with the listed AfD examples, is part of a recurring "bad content" issue where articles are fabricated in this manner. Frankly, on top of the OR issue, they are an unneeded and ill-advised content fork. We have had a number of like content fork lists and articles come through AfD and PROD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the composite articles. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "articles" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's content fork. Yes, it's a bad fork. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb ( talk) 22:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and cleanup.. Courcelles ( talk) 00:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Unencyclopedic article relying largely on original research. Gobonobo T C 21:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The consensus here appears to be that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to make the subject notable. Tim Song ( talk) 12:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
SummerPhD's prod for this television special was removed and I can't find significant coverage also. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
:::What'chu talkin' about Rob?--
Milowent (
talk) 17:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)withdrawn upon the recommendation of Mr. Drummond.--
Milowent (
talk)
18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. The rough consensus is that the subject is notable enough for our guidelines, even if not strongly so. Some sources have been added. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Author and academic. However, does not seem to meet the rough criteria for inclusion. Moreover, this is an unreferenced BLP. Pichpich ( talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Courcelles ( talk) 00:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Creator appears to be promoting their own theory. No reliable sources available. Cassandra 73 ( talk) 20:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Bubble Gang. Tim Song ( talk) 03:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Though there is no question to the notability of Bubble Gang, this particular segment requires significant coverage in reliable sources as a notable object on its own. The article has been in existence since May 2006, and until now it is still bordering on being a stub and wholly unsourced. I am therefore nominating it for deletion on the grounds 1. failure to meet general notability guidelines, and 2. the complete lack of reliable sources. – Shannon Rose Talk 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Not much to say- there's no consensus to delete this, but also no full consensus to keep it, either. Courcelles ( talk) 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this for deletion because during a discussion here there was broad consensus that subcategories should be notable per se, which this list seem to fail. Sandman888 ( talk) 20:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I vote delete - it should be noted that I'm of the opinion that 90% of 'list of' articles should be removed from Wikipedia unless there's really a compelling reason for the list. Many of these lists are created to push a POV, and succeed in that aim regardless of the accuracy of the article. In this case, the relatively benign aim of the article seems to be to promote Princeton University, which isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not the point of an encyclopedia. Nwlaw63 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC). reply
Keep Interesting format, useful information presented presumably as a "See Also" off the main Princeton University page. This is well crafted and informative and there should be a very high bar set for deletion of such fare. Not liking lists or thinking it flacks too much for a particular school do not seem to be anywhere near sufficient for deletion. Carrite ( talk) 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The claims to notability are completely unsourced, and brief Google searches reveal nothing that links the subject to e.g. Lil Wayne and so on. Therefore probably non-notable. If sources can be provided, I'll be happy to withdraw the nom.
Article was originally PRODded; tag removed by article author (who presumably is the subject of the article, hence has a CoI). Oli Filth( talk| contribs) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and this one does not have significant third-party coverage. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This was originally supposed to be speedy deleted under A7, but considering the behavior of the creator I will decide to ease down to a AfD so he can have time to show his article is able to be in the main space. Rohedin TALK 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Tim Song ( talk) 03:14, 12 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}} . |
Fails all facets of WP:WEB. The only media attention received is based off of the Jason Leopold affair regarding Karl Rove, and the attention is about Leopold and not really Truthout. Situation is and should be handled in the Leopold article. A Google News search shows no sources about Truthout and no meaningful linking to Truthout from reliable, credible sources. Should be deleted. Ed Wood's Wig ( talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Gene93k
Uh, I count over 1,010 entries on google news ABOUT Truthout and over 200 articles FROM news source truthout including two spotlights which very few publications achieve. Truthout is a well known news source, is ranked in the top 100 at technorati and has a pagerank of 8.
Your claims are completely unfounded Gene93k.
NotalChord
Truthout has gotten media attention lately. Stories by Truthout were picked up by CBS's "60 Minutes" and Democracy Now!. Truthout contributor Beverly Bell has been reporting regularly from post-earthquake Haiti since January. Bell broke a story about Haitian farmers banding together to reject corporate domination, burning millions of dollars worth of genetically modified seeds donated by agrigiant Monsanto. The story went viral on Digg and Facebook and got tens of thousands of views. A story Truthout reported in June 2009, based on a little-known document that indicated George W. Bush had authorized the use of dogs and other methods to intimidate prisoners in Iraq, was picked up by MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" and led lawmakers, such as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, to begin making inquiries into these interrogation techniques.
There is probably a lot more evidence that other media sources pay attention. Google News picks up Truthout articles every day. You can see for your self here. Matt43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt43 ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Also, Truthout is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity in California. You can verify that they exist using Guidestar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt43 ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Bill Moyers also cited a Truthout article my scholar Henry Giroux in his September 4, 2009 broadcast --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt43 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I added a section with sourcing verifying Truthout's impact in credible media sources. Check out the Impact section and see if it puts your minds at ease. Matt43 ( talk) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
You might want to tell everyone who created Democracy Now! that they're wrong then. Also, CNN did link to Truthout on the article that you deleted. I guess I'll have to dig it up again. Matt43 ( talk) 02:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC) CNN did link to Truthout. It is a very small link under their video, but they put it in there because Truthout broke the story. Matt43 ( talk) 02:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Ed - this is what it says below the video box: "Added On May 24, 2010 CNN's Abbie Boudreau interviews Scott West, former special agent with the EPA, about two other oil spills involving BP. Show Pages - Special Investigations Unit - CNN.com t r u t h o u t" and the spaced out "Truthout" is a link the the Truthout homepage. Matt43 ( talk) 22:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Ed Wood's Wig is wholly biased, underscored by his comments, in seeking the deletion of Truthout. That in and of itself is a violation of Wikipedia's terms and must be dealt with at a higher level. If Ed Wood is applying this standard to Truthout then he should swiftly apply the same standard to Alternet and CommonDreams and seek deletion of those entries, since neither is regularly cited by what he deems to be "credible" sources. That goes for numerous other articles on Wikipedia as well. Credible is subjective. What he may personally see as a non credible sources may very well be looked at as highly credible by many others. His comments about Democracy Now alone further demonstrate how utterly biased and out of touch he is. Democracy Now is one of the most well respected independent news sources on the web and is beloved by veteran journalists. Amy Goodman, the show's host, is widely known and cited time and again.
For Ed Wood's Wig, this smacks as a personal vendetta. Again, a violation of Wikipedia's terms. One only need to look at Ed Wood's history as a Truthout obsessive to gain enough evidence to see that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 ( talk) 02:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
According to Alexa, Truthout is ranked as the 5,066th website in the US by reach. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/truthout.org
According to Quantcast, Truthout is ranked as the 5,516 website in the US. http://www.quantcast.com/truthout.org
According to Technorati, Truthout is one of the Top 100 Overall news sites on the net. http://technorati.com/search?return=sites&authority=all&q=truthout&x=0&y=0
According to Compete, Truthout has recently surpasssed Alternet in unique visitors. http://siteanalytics.compete.com/truthout.org+alternet.org/
According to Facebook, Truthout's Page has more fans, faster ads, and higher engagement than Alternet's. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Truthout/83865976093 http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/AlterNet/17108852506?ref=ts
( talk) 18:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC) 76.87.57.127 ( talk) reply
Ed Wood's Wig - I updated the article where you asked for citations. Thanks for pointing out those needed citations, I think the entry for Truthout is stronger because of it. I hope this will help to allay your concerns. Matt43 ( talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Well Ed Wood's Wig, your argument is weak and based on the evidence supplied here it's abundantly clear that Truthout has enormous value and you are violating Wikipedia rules by being inherently biased. The votes to keep truthout outnumber those who want to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 ( talk) 21:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I'd like you, Ed Wood's Wig, to supply articles ABOUT every other news sources that is listed on Wikipedia and for those articles that fail to meet the same standards you apply to Truthout should be deleted. You are now on record stating that is the litmus test you are applying here. Each and every comment you make reeks of bias. Perhaps if you disclosed your identity we could see if perhaps you are a disgruntled former employee or someone who was affiliated with truthout. The point being that your argument for deletion does not appear to be genuine. It appears to be based on an issue that is much more personal in nature and your comment, "Leopold's false reporting aside," is clear cut evidence of that.
The fact of the matter is this: Truthout is widely read and cited by numerous mainstream and independent outlets and the people on this discussion thread have made their case by providing us with the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 ( talk) 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment - so far, we have a large volume of SPA support, but non-SPAs are only the nominator plus one delete and one keep. We need some more independent views. JohnCD ( talk) 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I cannot believe that no one is calling out Ed Wood's Wig for his continued bias and ridiculous rationale for deleting Truthout. Since when do Wiki articles on media organizations cite articles written ABOUT said media organization? That is complete BS. Maybe articles about MSM publications like the NYT but where are the articles ABOUT alternet and mother jones and buzzflash and common dreams? Where are the discussion threads about deleting those articles? I am unaware of people sitting around writing articles saying "hey the NYT is great!" or "hey look what alternet did!" Why is Ed Wood's g singling out Truthout? And why does he or she continue to deny that the beef he or she has is about Leopold? It's so utterly apparent! Has Ed Wood's Wig applied the same broad brush to the NYT which reported that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and relied on the shoddy reporting of Judith Miller? This is really a ridiculous attempt to breathe life into a four year old story about Karl Rove. People have moved on from it as evidenced by the numerous links that cite truthout and Leopold's work in general, including this story in the NYT from earlier this week http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/the-justice-department-seeks-evidence-of-crimes-in-the-gulf/?partner=rss&emc=rss
surely, if these reputable publications find value in the content truthout publishes other do as well. But Ed Wood's Wig, who wears his or her bias on his or her sleeve, wants to make it difficult by saying there aren't any articles ABOUT truthout. Well, Ed Wood's Wig, people don't sit around all day writing articles about news organizations. And it's not the fault of truthout if there aren't any articles of that nature. But if you delete truthout you must begin an exhaustive review of every other article on news organizations and begin the process of deleting them as well if they do not meet the same standard applied to truthout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 ( talk) 19:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I brought up alternet buzzflash and common dreams. Whee are the articles ? where are the articles about those publications? I see none. And I expect you to respond with links to all three not just alternet. I think this needs to be taken to higher authorities at Wikipedia. Ed Wood's Wig is biased and no one person should have this much power particularly if they are so biased so as not to even consider any other argument than his or her own self righteous claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 ( talk) 19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Link please so we can all see who the reputable source is that wrote about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 ( talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
FWIW, Ed Wood's Wig represents the inherent problems associated with Wikipedia. One person's bias trumps the will of others. You've already been outvoted Ed. Perhaps the overall rules in general need to change. This is really self-serving and Ed is doing a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia and the article in general. Had it not been for the snarky remarks Ed made about truthout perhaps the discussion may have gone in a different direction. But from the get go, Ed made it abundantly clear his issue with Truthout is personal. I still chuckle at his uninformed comment about Democracy Now not being a reputable source. How can a show that interviews people, newsmakers that is, on camera not be reputable? Perhaps this is all about Ed's politics. Ed have you been trolling the entries of the right wing publications? Because if you haven't I certainly will and will demand you do the same with those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Actually, I will assist you Ed. Here's the link to Townhall.com. Delete away. There is absolutely nothing here ABOUT this incredibly popular website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townhall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 22:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Ed, here's another: RedState. Another popular website. Not a single article about them from a reputable source. Delete away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 22:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
And yet another. Mediaite. One very brief mention from the WaPo. Fails in every other category. Delete please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediaite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 22:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
FrontPageMagazine.com is yet another ripe for deletion. Start the thread. Nothing in here but NEGATIVE press from Media Matters. But that's not a standard to keep an article, according to Ed Wood's Wig. So they too should be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontpagemag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 22:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm actually right about all of them. Not might be right. And that is merely a sample of what I have found. I fully intend to dig up every news organization article listed on Wikipedia and provide all of the links here and demand you address them in the same exact manner. Then, I intend to contact the wiki users who edit those articles as well as the individuals at these news organizations, and alert them to your despotic intentions. That is now my mission. I have thus far found 27 articles about news organizations that, under the criteria you demand is adhered to, would make these articles worthy of deletion. And these are not lowbrow publications. Some are very popular. So if you want to be a policeman you're going to have to police the whole neighborhood.
Moreover, Ed Wood's Wig, you are fully capable of juggling more than one item. So, you should swiftly begin deletion discussion articles on all of these other publications. There's no reason why this can't be discussed simultaneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 06:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I have finished collecting most of the article entries, Ed, that would clearly fall under your guidelines for deletion (and since you seem to be the only one here wanting to enforce it I am calling it your guidelines). There are 87. So whenever you are ready to tackle each and every one of these I will post all of the links. So no more singling out one news company over another. For every "lefty" news portal you need to balance it out with one from the right side. That will show you are not biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Once again, Ed, you are WRONG, BIASED, and MISLEADING. The book citations are absolutely NOT from a majority of vanity presses. There are major publishers there: Harper Collins, Random House, St. Martins and they are included in the footnotes and that is apparent to anyone who wants to see it. Ed, at this point, I am personally going to appeal to wikipedia and have you banned for blatant bias or have your editing privileges revoked. You have failed to address the other websites that I have taken the time to cite here. Particularly the right wing websites that would also fall into the deletion categories. You continue to single out truthout and continue to try and claim that there aren't any legitimate sources referencing the website. You have a grudge. Plain and simple. Why not just admit it and stop trying to pretend you don't. You have done a horrible, horrible job of stating your case. What you have done is avoided citing the so-called "legitimate" sources that have linked to or referenced truthout and instead have gone out of your way to dig up sources YOU claim are illegitimate. YOU ARE BIASED. What you want, Ed, is to delete the article despite the fact that you have been proven wrong time and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't even know what this article is--a record label? A compilation album? A soundtrack? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Indenting the vote of an indef-blocked sockpuppet. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Tim Song ( talk) 03:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable list of frat meetings (see WP:TRIVIA) that does not warrant an article. Most of its sources come from the fraternity itself, and many of its editors are fraternity members. Wikipedia is not a frat's pledge manual. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou ( talk) 18:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)— Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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}} . |
Keep. This biennial convention is not just a "frat meeting." This is the supreme governing body of an organization that has initiated about a quarter of a million men. NYCRuss ☎ 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Merge back into main article. I suspect that the Grand Conclaves are of little note outside the fraternity. Mangoe ( talk) 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep. Lists of meetings for the entire organization may be valid and represent an easily separable portion. Naraht ( talk) 20:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Notes about AFD:
To those who prefer a merge, the AFD proposing editor's objection is not that the information is on a seperate page, it is that it exists on Wikipedia at all. From the language, I do not believe that a merge would satisfy the proposing editor.
Also, I find it a little odd that the {{Not a ballot}} was used given that neither of the criteria on WP:Before (expect the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia) or (actual occurance of same) have occured. Naraht ( talk) 20:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Keep -- this is a listing of biennial meetings of a historically notable organization. Similar listings concerning a single organization are commonplace on wikipedia (see below) and, as noted by Naraht above, do not seem to fit the examples in WP:NOT.
jheiv talk contribs 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
More Fraternity / Sorority National Meeting Lists:
jheiv talk contribs 20:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep This list meets WP:list and it is a list of notable events on a notable organization. It clearly qualifies as a standalone list, not to be merged into the main article. Inclusion criteria are clear, concise and not indiscriminate.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 01:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Skoot Larson’s Biography
California native Skoot Larson has been in a music fan from birth. By age six, Skoot had acquired a trumpet, and fascinated by his father’s jazz collection, Skoot would play along with records of Louis Armstrong or Pete Daily’s Chicagoans. He later switched his musical efforts to the baritone saxophone.
Skoot also discovered books at an early age, and enjoyed writing short stories from his elementary school days through maturity, often featuring musicians and jazz music in his writings.
Over the years, Skoot has written restaurant, theater, and music reviews for such publications as the Long Beach Press Telegram, the Goleta Sun, and the Signal Hill Tribune as well as historical monographs for scholarly journals. His first jazz mystery novel, “The No News is Bad News Blues” was published in February of 2007 by Author House, Bloomington, Indiana and Milton Keynes, England.
Skoot’s first career as a radio disc jockey and radio talk show host required the young writer to move around America, and eventually Skoot lived for a time in Australia and England. Skoot also expanded his career interests, working as a behavioral therapy counselor, college instructor, musician and publisher.
In 1999, Skoot moved back to his home town if San Pedro and completed his Master of Arts degree in Humanities – Jazz Music History from California State University Dominguez Hills. While attending classes, he served as Conductor and Tour Guide on the Port of Los Angeles Waterfront Red Car Line’s historic “Pacific Electric” streetcar.
Skoot served his country with US Amphibious Forces in Viet Nam, as well as deploying with the team that picked up the Apollo 10 astronauts when their capsule landed in the Pacific. He retired from the U. S. Coast Guard Reserve as a Lieutenant after writing the Port of Los Angeles Anti-Terrorism Plan for the 1984 Olympics.
In 2013, Skoot retired to Rockport, Texas, where he launched a new series of mystery novels featuring Dave Holman, the Texas detective along with a novel of political satire, The Palestine Solution and a humorous spiritual novel, The Testament of Jessica Crystal. Skoot also writes a series of humorous fantasy featuring King Irv, a Jewish king in fifth century England.
Skoot’s primary loves are acoustic jazz, detective fiction, Wagnerian opera and cats. To date, Skoot has published ten novels and an anthology of his poetry. His latest novel is a humorous fantasy, King Irv’s Big Adventure.
(UTC)
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and Google shows nothing special. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This article adds nothing at all to Wikipedia. The article Cantons of Switzerland already contains all the information in this stub, and the table found in that article contains a sortable column with the area of each canton. No point in merging, as there's nothing in this article that isn't already covered in Cantons of Swizterland, so I move it be deleted Jeppiz ( talk) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, removed by another editor. Article fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The comments by Location and especially Stifle are persuasive. This is a coatrack as it stands. Even if it weren't, I'm unsure how the subject could maintain a stand-alone article. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a Coatrack / Soapbox article. Even if it weren't, I don't believe it's a notable subject. Dogweather ( talk) 07:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced BLP, unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (Sticky prod was removed because IMDb is "a source".) His "best known for" role is as a small child in the backstory portion of a slasher flick. Not a major role in any sense. Mostly voicework since then, none of it of clear notability, much of it clearly not (redlinked productions, characters incidental to the storyline, etc.). SummerPhD ( talk) 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to SummerSlam until the event becomes closer. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:ROUTINE. TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 16:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Does not meet the GNG. The only mentions of this website on Google News is in a handful of local Milwaukee press items. Fæ ( talk) 16:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per WP:G12 by J.delanoy ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Anturiaethwr Talk 23:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I feel such an article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, it may be construed as an attack on Microsoft. Shashwat986 ( talk) 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill ( talk) 15:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete - I can find no indication of notability as an author. The books do not appear to have garnered significant critical review, and in the case of My Iranian Matriarchs, is self-published through PublishAmerica. Her gallery has had some minor coverage in local press. See [20], and [21] for examples. But this is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non Notable student event. - bordering on promotional. Codf1977 ( talk) 15:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.— Kww( talk) 23:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. I can find no substantive treatment of this person in reliable, independent sources that would satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO or the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Deor ( talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
*Keep Notable in Britain for her leading work in the area of Cyberbullying, and as a speaker and trainer known for her work with young men.
Inniverse (
talk)
03:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Local radio show which doesn't appear to be notable, no 3rd party refs or sources and written with probable COI. Was prodded and deleted over a year ago and recently restored by request by User:Fabrictramp, not sure who requested Jac16888 Talk 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
USER:Techtalkradio Hi. Thanks for the Debate - I am the Creator of this Post and did it to direct listeners to the Wikipedia Page and utilize Wikipedia for all types of content. I have intended it to be informational and to provide insight to the Broadcast Radio Show and TV Segments, As far as this account being blocked, when did that happen or did it? There is another Radio Show calling themselves Techtalk Radio in Australia, is there possible confusion with that show? We have been on the air since 1996, written about in Books on Broadcasting and I shave served as Moderator on panels at CES and as a professional broadcaster for over 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.119.153 ( talk) 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Another target of our newest(?) serial deprodder; prod rationale was "Non-notable person, unreferenced, not even clear that this is a real person". In any event, I can find no substantive treatment of this perhaps-living person in reliable, independent sources, nor evidence that any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR are satisfied. Deor ( talk) 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to heterochromia. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. Tim Song ( talk) 03:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence that "fictional characters with heterochromia" has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. These characters have no relation to each other apart from one minor physical characteristic, useful for making a character remarkable, frightening, prdestined, or whatever the author wants with it. A category may be feasible. Fram ( talk) 14:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N, it is just a cliché. There is no significabt coverage in reliable sources apart from the list of hockey teams itself. I doubt the article can be ever expanded without WP:SYN or something like that. Blacklake ( talk) 14:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Another target of our newest(?) serial deprodder; prod rationale was "Non-notable person, unreferenced, not even clear that this is a real person". In any event, I can find no substantive treatment of this perhaps-living person in reliable, independent sources, nor evidence that any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR are satisfied. Deor ( talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non- notable company. Since it only launched on May 24, 2010, it has hardly had time to yet become notable. Although it is described as "award winning", there are no mentions of what awards it may have won. The only references given are from the firm's own website. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The company has actually been around for 4 years now. It was formerly The KBuzz but changed its name on May 24th, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmalzone ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I changed it around a bit so that there are more secondary sources, awards, etc. Please review again. Kmalzone ( talk) 15:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Blatant Search Marketing Practices in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.119.64 ( talk) 11:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Textbook dictionary definition, plus examples of usage (which also belong in a dictionary). There's no encyclopedic content here. Powers T 13:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD; article is about a non-notable youth footballer who currently fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
In terms of WP:GNG he has had his own article on skysports.com, has been referenced in an article in the daily mail along with a lot of mainstream football sites such as goal.com and and tribal-football.
In terms of WP:Athlete he has signed a professional contract at the club, therefore he is a professional footballer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl barrett ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't know how to format references, but I found this. Which provides plenty of information about the game. http://www.mobygames.com/game/think-quick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.156.100 ( talk) 14:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Learning Company. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non Notable Game Codf1977 ( talk) 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Is this really notable, virtual Louise from PayPal? Can we merge with PayPal? Wintonian ( talk) 11:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
It can be linked with Paypal but cannot be merged with it as PayPal page talk about the company and its history, whereas this page talks about a new technology being used by websites for online customer service. User:Tangenceinc
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable Journal based on the fact that it is not due to be published until 2011 Codf1977 ( talk) 10:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Redirecting may be further discussed on the article's talk page, but closed as 'keep' lacking support for deletion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable video game Codf1977 ( talk) 10:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content). -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non Notable "sport" Codf1977 ( talk) 10:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 03:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Article full of "speculation", Name not known, Location not known, no confirmation it will be built (reminder that the 2010 British GP was meant to be at a new and improved Donington Park but after funding was not forthcoming it has reverted to Silverstone) Codf1977 ( talk) 10:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 12:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The year may well come but think that at the moment this falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL Codf1977 ( talk) 10:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a hoax. If proper sources that indicate notability can be found and authenticated, then the article may be recreated. NW ( Talk) 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete I believe that this article is a hoax, and if it isn't then it is totally non-notable. I can find nothing anywhere else to indicate that Hans Adolf Von Hindennburg existed. I can find no evidence of the existence of either of the works cited as sources. I cannot even find evidence of the existence of either of the supposed authors of the two works cited. In addition to this, even if the information in the article is true and can be sourced (which I doubt) it does not seem to me to indicate much significance of the man. I shall therefore tag the article for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but I am also making this AfD nomination in case the speedy deletion is declined. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local councillor. Fails WP:POLITICIAN because local councillors are not automatically notable, and fails WP:BIO because there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (the only independent source in the article is a passing mention in a local newspaper). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The non-profit organization that hosts Mississippi's science fiction and fantasy Convention. Very spammy article with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Proposed for deletion because "No reliable sources for this pseudoscientific article. Theory created in The Temple and the Lodge of Baigent and Leigh (of Da Vinci Code fame), it was only picked up (apart from blogs and fora) by Michel Roger Lafosse, the self declared heir to the throne of Scotland. Wikipedia is not the place to propagate such baseless theories." ProD removed by article author (without summary, but other reversals relating to the same article were done "Ex parte and paranoid administrator." [28]). The article currently has two sources, one to an unsigned article at baronage.co.uk, and one to a 1734 source. However, I have been unable to verify the 1734 source, having found instead a 1747 book by the same author, discussing the same thing (the donation of an altar from Oostburg to Gent by Balduin bishop of Tournai), but it places this in 1111 (not 1046) and with Archdeacon Lamberti, not Robert de Bruges. [29] Anyway, even assuming that there has been a Robert, castellan of Bruges in 1046, there is nothing linking him to Robert de Bruce in any reliable source [30], only in the Baigent and Leigh wishful history book "The Temple and the Lodge" [31]. Even as pseudoscience, this has hardly received any attention 38 Google hits There is no evidence that he is the son of a count of Louvain, but he has to be, as this whole story is based on one (supposed) mention of a castellan, the possibility that said castellan moved to Normandy, and the similarities between heraldic symbols in Leuven and Scotland. The missing link was between Leuven and Normandy, so let's fabircate a son of the count of Leuven out of thin air... Funny fiction, but not the thing Wikipedia should be used for. This book has a whole chapter on the Castellans, but doesn't mention Robert de Bruges. Probably because, while there is mention of a Robert (or Robrecht), castellanus of Bruges, there is no mention at all to be found of a "Robert de Bruges" in any source. [32] See e.g. the equally unreliable source where Robert is succeeded by his son-in-law and by a second son-in-law afterwards, who all remained in Bruges and weren't called "De Bruges".
So, to summarize, we have one old document about a "Roberti castellani Brugensis", and everything else in this article, including the title, his ancestors, and his descendants, is fabulation in one book by some pseudo-historical writers, repeated in a few fora and blogs. Fram ( talk) 07:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
it's a fake article i believe YoYaYo123 ( talk) 07:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This article was speedy deleted as an A7 but was recreated during the deletion review. The original speedy was endorsed but there was consensus that the sourcing on this improved version required a discussion before further deletion could be considered. This is a procedural nomination as the closer of the DRV and I thereby express no personal opinion on this article Spartaz Humbug! 06:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Woodridge, Illinois#Education. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Junior High Schools do not fall under WP:NHS and the article has little prospect of meeting the GNG. Fæ ( talk) 06:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete, appears to be a advertsing beard under the guise if a well sourced article. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 06:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No explination as to why the film is notible. Wintonian ( talk) 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable singer. Internet searches have yielded no significant coverage. The one source given in this article is a review where Petrella is not even the primary subject. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable. While there are sources given for this article, in my view they are not significant enough to establish notability. The company itself is really not the primary subject of any of the sources; two of which are performance reviews and one which is really more about the director. My searches for reliable independent source where the company itself is the primary subject (ie not a performance review) have yielded nothing; and really that is what is needed in this case. 4meter4 ( talk) 04:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
1. The write-up in The Cock Tavern Theatre be shortened to one sentence with a link to this article (which had been copied verbatim from there without proper attribution).
2. "longest continuously performed La Boheme of all time" is clearly untrue, as 4meter4 pointed out. [49] The Stage reference merely repeats the company's press release.
In fact. I'm going to fix both issues now. Voceditenore ( talk) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Dubiously disambiguated from vortex. Believers in the paranormal see swirls and they call them vortices. There's not much more to this and no chance for expansion. We don't have articles on vortex (bathtub), vortex (video games), or vortex (swimming holes) for similar reasons. Article seems to have been recreated in defiance of the previous AfD to boot. ScienceApologist ( talk) 03:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. Blocking author and a few of his sockpuppets perpetrating the same hoax. Wknight94 talk 03:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Can not find any reliable sources independent of the subject, thoroughly searched google news archives with no success so does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The infobox for the article hints at the fact that he played for the 1982 Boston Red Sox but here are the complete stats for that team and he is not listed. Articles for career minor leaguers must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject to pass WP:NSPORTS. I realize that WP:NSPORTS is not a policy or guideline but the I believe the lack of reliable sources available speaks for itself. J04n( talk page) 03:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and no assertion of notability is made here. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable athlete. Prsaucer1958 ( talk)
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 12:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
An addition to the Book of Mormon. It does not matter whether it is authentic or not; the only issue here is whether it is notable. I submit that it is not notable and this article is pure spam. Warning. There has already been blatant sock puppetry in the talk page. Expect more here. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 06:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete: it does not meet the notability requirement. Sealednot ( talk) 23:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This article on the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon is both notable and worthy of notice. The subject matter has been discussed extensively in the following other articles of Wikipedia: • Alvin Smith (brother of Joseph Smith, Jr.) • An Insider's View of Mormon Origins • Angel Moroni • Anthon Transcript • Anti-Mormonism • Archaeology and the Book of Mormon • B. H. Roberts • Book of Mormon anachronisms • Book of Omni • Cumorah • Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. • Golden plates • Joseph Smith, Jr. • Laban (Book of Mormon) • Limited geography model • Linguistics and the Book of Mormon • List of Latter Day Saint movement topics • Lucy Mack Smith • Manuscript • Mark E. Petersen • Mark Hofmann • Mark Hofmann • Mormonism and engraved metal plates • Mormonism and Judaism • Mormonism Unvailed • Origin of the Book of Mormon • Paul R. Cheesman • Plates of Nephi • Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting • Record of the Nephites • Record of the Nephites • Reformed Egyptian • Salamander letter • Search for the Truth (video) • September 21 • Standard Works • Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints)
Evidence that this particular article on the subject is both noteworthy and worthy of notice is established, in part, by the extensive debate concerning the claims made by Christopher Marc Nemelka about the Sealed Portion discussed in the article. This debate has continued for several years, as revealed in the following websites, discussion groups, and media coverage:
list of URLs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
axiominvestigator.blogspot.com/.../responses-to-chris-nemelkas-answers.html blog.mrm.org/2010/05/authorized-and-official-biography/ bookofmormononline.net/blog/the-sealed-portion/ books.livingsocial.com/lists/1017083-atheism-agnosticism-religion? bookstore.xmlwriter.net/books/search/1-Christopher+Saint.html dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/LDSgroups/message/2299 en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries en.fairmormon.org/Specific.../Christopher_Marc_Nemelka en.wordpress.com/tag/christopher-marc-nemelka/ en.wordpress.com/tag/the-book-of-mormon/ entreated.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html es.fairmormon.org/FAIRMormon:Portal_de_la_comunidad fr-ch.wordpress.com/tag/the-book-of-mormon/ freesitereview.blogspot.com/ gooleoo.com/.../comment-on-the-sealed-portion-by-getterdone481.html groups.yahoo.com/group/LDSgroups/message/2299 groups.yahoo.com/group/LDSgroups/message/2299 groups.yahoo.com/group/marvelousworkandawonder iipuu.com/youtube.php?vq=nemelka&type=youtube ilovemormons.wordpress.com/.../a-marvelous-work-and-a-wonderful-sequel/ ldsmovement.pbworks.com/Marvelous%20Work%20and%20a%20Wonder marvelousworkandawonder.com memoirsofamormoncynic.blogspot.com/.../sealed-plates.html memoirsofamormoncynic.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/.../sealed-portion-of-book-of-mormon.html mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12907 mormonmatters.org/.../have-you-read-the-sealed-portion-of-the-book-of-mormon-yet/ mybookshop.blackapplehost.com/store/christ1.htm ndgmedia.com/products/Golden-Plates.html news.justia.com onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/.../the-spiritual-wife-doctrine/ packham.n4m.org/prophet2.htm pearlpublishing.net/store/bookdetails/tsp.htm polygamybooks.org/.../why-would-an-american-want-to-convert-to-islam.aspx? prfree.com/index.php?action=preview&id=24607 sealednot.wordpress.com successdb.com/tag/lds+church/2/ thetruth.dontexist.net/O/pdf.php?text&file...pdf www.123people.com/s/christopher+read www.amazon.com/Sacred-not-Secret.../dp/0978526473 www.aolnews.com/topic/christopher-nemelka www.apologeticsindex.org/680-polygamy-sects www.asamonitor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18131&pid... www.bookhills.com/The-Sealed-Portion-The-Final-Testament-of-Jesus-Christ-0978526465.htm www.bookhuddle.com/book/2433743/The-Immortal - Cached www.bookrenter.com/the-sealed-portion-the-final-testament-of-jesus-christ-0978526465-9780978526467 www.canadastandard.com/index.php/ct/7 www.connorboyack.com/blog/luciferianism www.couol.com/books/author-Christopher+Marc+Nemelka www.directtextbook.com/.../sealed-portion-the-final-testament-nemelka www.easybooksearch.com/book_description/0916847012 www.examiner.com/Subject-Christopher_Nemelka.html www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon506.htm www.exmormonforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=11025&sid... www.freeread.com/archives/2725.php www.ghostvillage.com/ghostcommunity/lofiversion/index.php?t25833... www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/reply.php?messageid=90367...5... www.groupsrv.com/religion/about109499.html www.irshelp.biz/products/Golden-Plates.html www.iyares.com/books/s/?q=Jesus+the+Final+Days www.josephsmithbiography.com/ www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1463 www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008_09_14_archive.html www.massweed.com/products/Golden-Plates.html www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/11887-lost-pages-of-bom-resurfaced/ www.mormonstruth.org/massacre.html www.mormonthink.com/josephweb.htm www.newsrunner.com/entity/top-stories/christopher-nemelka/.../0/0 www.nydailynews.com/topics/Christopher+Nemelka - Cached - Similar www.puppstheories.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4615 www.shelfari.com/o1518327948 www.thesealedportion.com/ www.univision.com/video/buscar.jhtml?query=+NEMELKA&modifier... www.utlm.org/onlineresources/letters.../2005january.htm www.wikio.com/.../general-books-reviews-49894-page25-sort0,b.html www.wikio.com/.../the-sealed-portion-the-final-testament-of-jesus-christ-8015269,b.html www.wwunited.org www.yasni.de/person/nemelka/%20/nemelka.htm www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5u_jzCzV48 www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXm6VM6LHA |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvessels ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Savonneux, for your comment to mine. Each of the websites, discussion groups, and media references is a "reliable source" in that they are active, productive online discussions, debating the pros and cons of various controversial issues involving the subject matter. More importantly, to respond to your last point, EACH site I have sourced includes specific debate, pro or con, on the specific subject of Christopher Nemelka's claims that the "sealed portion" referenced in this article is what it purports to be.
Please let me know if there is other evidence I can provide you to establish that this article is, indeed, notable and worthy of notice.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvessels ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi Roger, To make certain I understand your comments from various other locations, my personal talk, the discussion page, and other contributors comments, that essentially unless we have 3rd party sources- something published directly about this proposed article content/subject, (and not just one or two but a lot of things that I suppose you or I would might refer to as main stream media) if I read your comments correctly above, you'll be deleting this whole thing a Spam; is that right? - I would think if you could give us more time,(1 or 2 weeks perhaps?) from the simple list that Rod Vessels provided above, that we could provide the "notability required" to justify its ability to comply with Wikipedias requirements and remain as a legitimate article. -Thank you for your time Roger, I do appreciate the efforts you've made to try and help in the way you best see fit- I personally wish I/we could make this work somehow - I believe it would be quite helpful for many as a good source to find information... Do we still have a few days left to find notability reference or are we just wasting everyones time and you've already made up your mind? Sincerely and Thank you- Johnny 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAWWIKI ( talk • contribs)
Re: Notability criterion #1 - From Wikipedia:Notability (books), : The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial<ref name="nontrivial"/> published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,<ref name="independent"/> with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.<ref name="selfpromotion"/>
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 00:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local political group, referenced only to their own website. I cannot find any sign of the significant coverage in reliable sources required to establish notability per WP:N.
I am surprised to see that this article has existed for nearly 5 years. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy nominee, but appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 23:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 00:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Wholly unreferenced BLP, for which I cannot find any reliable sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 02:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Dab page for only two entries, hatnote should be used. — fetch · comms 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. A merge discussion on the article's talk page is encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, should be on Commons. — fetch · comms 01:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, could be merged into List of curves or copied to Commons. — fetch · comms 01:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 03:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a WP:POVFORK from Jacobsen v. Katzer. Jminthorne ( talk) 01:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The content is being modified, as indicated, to a full article. Updating the title is a good idea too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkawonka ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Courcelles ( talk) 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
no notability shown for this (auto?)bio. duffbeerforme ( talk) 14:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete, simply not notable. I considered tagging this as db-spam, but in any case it lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. 14 days without commentary. The article has never been prodded, so please treat as a contested prod if anyone wants this restored. Courcelles ( talk) 00:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bus company in Veracruz, Mexico. Outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors, I can't find any significant coverage. MidnightDesert ( talk) 06:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 00:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Biography, probably autobio., written in unencyclopedic tone with scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 08:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bus company in Mexico. Vast majority of search hits are for Wikipedia mirrors plus 1 or 2 passing mentions on Spanish websites related to route listings and the such. MidnightDesert ( talk) 08:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable transport company in Mexico. No significant coverage. Most search hits are Wikipedia mirrors, I only found one passing mention on a Mexican website. No claims to notability asserted. MidnightDesert ( talk) 09:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, should be on Commons. — fetch · comms 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
A search for reference did not find any for the "Fajr-2", There are multiple references for Fajr-3, 4 & 5. Fails WP:N & WP:V, article has been tagged as unreferenced since September 2006 JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Cannot find any reliable sources independent of the subject. The page says that he has released two albums but they are not named and I have not been able to identify them to see if they meet the requirements for WP:MUSICBIO. Perhaps someone more familiar with Bulgarian hip hop can find a source? J04n( talk page) 15:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Absolutely no indication of the topic's importance. Possibly some google hits but hard to find third-party, non-trivial coverage; also, no third-party non-trivial coverage included in the article. This article, based on its "3 days ago" release and the three links (twitter, blog, official website) smells an awful lot like WP:ADVERT. It may be notable, but there are no links here to prove it. — Timneu22 · talk 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't exactly figure out the topic of this article. It seems to be a how-to guide for some sort of metadata processing, but I can't see this as a valid encyclopedia article. The page should have been speedied soon after creation, since the only significant contributor blanked it; however, a bot misinterpreted the blanking as vandalism, and it's been significantly edited by others since that time. Nyttend ( talk) 00:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 03:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable according to Wikipedia policy on notability WP:ENT. (note: don't be led astray by "number of Google results". Thousands of people called "Sigal Cohen" live in Israel.) Nikonmer ( talk) 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill ( talk) 22:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Article was deleted due to copyright issues that went unaddressed for more than 7 days. Administrative closure without prejudice to relist in case of recreation of an article that addresses the copyright issues, as no consensus was reached at the time of closure. MLauba ( Talk) 11:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Chairmain of Mahindra Satyam. PROD refused, but all the other officers have been speedy tagged. Bringing them here. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily closed as moot. I have redirected this to the newly created article, Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Since the text here was a public domain source text from the US government, a small portion of the actual regulations, I see no urgent need to erase its history or to keep this open. Kudos to User:TJRC for making a proper article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete, this might be speedy able but not too sure. I really don't think we are in the habit of writing or in this case copying and pasting so we have law information if I'm wrong I welcome another experienced editor to close. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Elevating another Mahindra Satyam bio... this is the CEO. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Article was deleted due to copyright issues that went unaddressed for more than 7 days. Administrative closure without prejudice to relist in case of recreation of an article that addresses the copyright issues, as no consensus was reached at the time of closure. MLauba ( Talk) 11:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Speedied, but is the CTO of a notable(?) corporation, Mahindra Satyam. I don't feel comfortable deleting this without AFD support. delete' UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Crazy Anglos. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The subject nor either of his bands seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO, can find no significant independent coverage of the artist. J04n( talk page) 10:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG nothing in gnews
[68]. the article is basically a website for followers of the club, which play in a low level amateur league in
South Australia. it is not like the
Australian Football League or
VFL.
LibStar (
talk)
06:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC, and Google shows nothing. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:HAMMER is not policy, it's an observation that if the name/track order if an upcomming album is not known, then the article is likely to be deleted per other policies/guidelines such as WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. However, when nominating or discussing the deletion of an article, you should base your arguments on the actual policies or guidelines that may apply. In this case the consensus is that the article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL but it may be weak in the WP:NALBUMS department. However, in general there is no consensus to delete this article. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply
violates WP:HAMMER Adabow ( talk) 06:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to John Rook#Hit Parade Hall of Fame. Redirecting on the advice of the nominator and the only !voter. Consider this closed as nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Article on non-notable "hall of fame" created by banned user. The only Google news hit is for a press release from the company behind this from March 2010, wherein it states that this is just an idea in "start up phase." Delete until such time as this hall of fame achieves real world notability, if ever. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Courcelles ( talk) 00:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The article Maricar Reyes is protected from creation due to frequent recreations and vandalisms. User:Madapaka created the Maricar Reyes (actress) instead. Try moving the page to Maricar Reyes, you'll see that the destination article is protected. Mageclansoftheeast ( talk) 16:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 06:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
A consulting company but no evidence of notability is offered. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 06:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Since no-one has demonstrated evidence that there are separate sources thatd escribe the subject separately from the band and notability is not inherited, the best policy based arguments are the delete one. Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Not nearly enough significant coverage seen. — fetch · comms 02:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep with leave to speedy renominate. I think we're done here. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Reason Pinner458 ( talk) 23:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
i am almost positive that wikipedia has one actress listed as two seperate people, a Laura Allen and a Laura Harris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Harris so i would appreciate if someone could somehow confirm the correct name and then delete the other one, IMDB has them listed as seperate people aswell so you may find it hard to prove..... anyway thanks
Speedy close - There is no evidence provided that the two articles represent the same person, and even if they were, that would be a reason to
WP:MERGE the articles. --
Whpq (
talk)
14:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
Speedy close. Completely groundless argument, independent referencing.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
close. They are not the same actress. Tangurena ( talk) 15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Groundless AfD, notable subject ( non-admin closure) mono 18:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Reason Pinner458 ( talk) 23:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
i am almost positive that wikipedia has one actress listed as two seperate people, a Laura Allen and a Laura Harris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Allen so i would appreciate if someone could somehow confirm the correct name and then delete the other one, IMDB has them listed as seperate people aswell so you may find it hard to prove..... anyway thanks
Speedy close - There is no evidence provided that the two articles represent the same person, and even if they were, that would be a reason to
WP:MERGE the articles. --
Whpq (
talk)
14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
Speedy close. Completely groundless argument, independent referencing.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
close. They are not the same actress. Tangurena ( talk) 15:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Laura Allen and Laura Harris are NOT the same person. The info at imdb.com is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstone2004 ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Puppy (album). Courcelles ( talk) 00:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 00:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If anyone wants the text to prepare a merge, just let me know. Courcelles ( talk) 00:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
For the same reasons out lined with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash (DC animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonder Woman (DC animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade (Marvel animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Strange (Marvel animated universe), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (DC animated universe), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.H.I.E.L.D. (Marvel animated universe). This article is a creation of original research that pulls information from various Wikipedia articles on comic book characters. Specifically:
Things that are worth noting here:
This, as with the listed AfD examples, is part of a recurring "bad content" issue where articles are fabricated in this manner. Frankly, on top of the OR issue, they are an unneeded and ill-advised content fork. We have had a number of like content fork lists and articles come through AfD and PROD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the composite articles. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "articles" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's content fork. Yes, it's a bad fork. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb ( talk) 22:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and cleanup.. Courcelles ( talk) 00:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Unencyclopedic article relying largely on original research. Gobonobo T C 21:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The consensus here appears to be that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to make the subject notable. Tim Song ( talk) 12:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
SummerPhD's prod for this television special was removed and I can't find significant coverage also. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
:::What'chu talkin' about Rob?--
Milowent (
talk) 17:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)withdrawn upon the recommendation of Mr. Drummond.--
Milowent (
talk)
18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. The rough consensus is that the subject is notable enough for our guidelines, even if not strongly so. Some sources have been added. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Author and academic. However, does not seem to meet the rough criteria for inclusion. Moreover, this is an unreferenced BLP. Pichpich ( talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Courcelles ( talk) 00:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Creator appears to be promoting their own theory. No reliable sources available. Cassandra 73 ( talk) 20:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Bubble Gang. Tim Song ( talk) 03:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Though there is no question to the notability of Bubble Gang, this particular segment requires significant coverage in reliable sources as a notable object on its own. The article has been in existence since May 2006, and until now it is still bordering on being a stub and wholly unsourced. I am therefore nominating it for deletion on the grounds 1. failure to meet general notability guidelines, and 2. the complete lack of reliable sources. – Shannon Rose Talk 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Not much to say- there's no consensus to delete this, but also no full consensus to keep it, either. Courcelles ( talk) 01:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this for deletion because during a discussion here there was broad consensus that subcategories should be notable per se, which this list seem to fail. Sandman888 ( talk) 20:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I vote delete - it should be noted that I'm of the opinion that 90% of 'list of' articles should be removed from Wikipedia unless there's really a compelling reason for the list. Many of these lists are created to push a POV, and succeed in that aim regardless of the accuracy of the article. In this case, the relatively benign aim of the article seems to be to promote Princeton University, which isn't the worst thing in the world, but it's not the point of an encyclopedia. Nwlaw63 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC). reply
Keep Interesting format, useful information presented presumably as a "See Also" off the main Princeton University page. This is well crafted and informative and there should be a very high bar set for deletion of such fare. Not liking lists or thinking it flacks too much for a particular school do not seem to be anywhere near sufficient for deletion. Carrite ( talk) 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The claims to notability are completely unsourced, and brief Google searches reveal nothing that links the subject to e.g. Lil Wayne and so on. Therefore probably non-notable. If sources can be provided, I'll be happy to withdraw the nom.
Article was originally PRODded; tag removed by article author (who presumably is the subject of the article, hence has a CoI). Oli Filth( talk| contribs) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and this one does not have significant third-party coverage. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This was originally supposed to be speedy deleted under A7, but considering the behavior of the creator I will decide to ease down to a AfD so he can have time to show his article is able to be in the main space. Rohedin TALK 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Tim Song ( talk) 03:14, 12 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}} . |
Fails all facets of WP:WEB. The only media attention received is based off of the Jason Leopold affair regarding Karl Rove, and the attention is about Leopold and not really Truthout. Situation is and should be handled in the Leopold article. A Google News search shows no sources about Truthout and no meaningful linking to Truthout from reliable, credible sources. Should be deleted. Ed Wood's Wig ( talk) 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Gene93k
Uh, I count over 1,010 entries on google news ABOUT Truthout and over 200 articles FROM news source truthout including two spotlights which very few publications achieve. Truthout is a well known news source, is ranked in the top 100 at technorati and has a pagerank of 8.
Your claims are completely unfounded Gene93k.
NotalChord
Truthout has gotten media attention lately. Stories by Truthout were picked up by CBS's "60 Minutes" and Democracy Now!. Truthout contributor Beverly Bell has been reporting regularly from post-earthquake Haiti since January. Bell broke a story about Haitian farmers banding together to reject corporate domination, burning millions of dollars worth of genetically modified seeds donated by agrigiant Monsanto. The story went viral on Digg and Facebook and got tens of thousands of views. A story Truthout reported in June 2009, based on a little-known document that indicated George W. Bush had authorized the use of dogs and other methods to intimidate prisoners in Iraq, was picked up by MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" and led lawmakers, such as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, to begin making inquiries into these interrogation techniques.
There is probably a lot more evidence that other media sources pay attention. Google News picks up Truthout articles every day. You can see for your self here. Matt43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt43 ( talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Also, Truthout is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity in California. You can verify that they exist using Guidestar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt43 ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Bill Moyers also cited a Truthout article my scholar Henry Giroux in his September 4, 2009 broadcast --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt43 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I added a section with sourcing verifying Truthout's impact in credible media sources. Check out the Impact section and see if it puts your minds at ease. Matt43 ( talk) 21:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
You might want to tell everyone who created Democracy Now! that they're wrong then. Also, CNN did link to Truthout on the article that you deleted. I guess I'll have to dig it up again. Matt43 ( talk) 02:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC) CNN did link to Truthout. It is a very small link under their video, but they put it in there because Truthout broke the story. Matt43 ( talk) 02:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Ed - this is what it says below the video box: "Added On May 24, 2010 CNN's Abbie Boudreau interviews Scott West, former special agent with the EPA, about two other oil spills involving BP. Show Pages - Special Investigations Unit - CNN.com t r u t h o u t" and the spaced out "Truthout" is a link the the Truthout homepage. Matt43 ( talk) 22:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Ed Wood's Wig is wholly biased, underscored by his comments, in seeking the deletion of Truthout. That in and of itself is a violation of Wikipedia's terms and must be dealt with at a higher level. If Ed Wood is applying this standard to Truthout then he should swiftly apply the same standard to Alternet and CommonDreams and seek deletion of those entries, since neither is regularly cited by what he deems to be "credible" sources. That goes for numerous other articles on Wikipedia as well. Credible is subjective. What he may personally see as a non credible sources may very well be looked at as highly credible by many others. His comments about Democracy Now alone further demonstrate how utterly biased and out of touch he is. Democracy Now is one of the most well respected independent news sources on the web and is beloved by veteran journalists. Amy Goodman, the show's host, is widely known and cited time and again.
For Ed Wood's Wig, this smacks as a personal vendetta. Again, a violation of Wikipedia's terms. One only need to look at Ed Wood's history as a Truthout obsessive to gain enough evidence to see that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 ( talk) 02:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
According to Alexa, Truthout is ranked as the 5,066th website in the US by reach. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/truthout.org
According to Quantcast, Truthout is ranked as the 5,516 website in the US. http://www.quantcast.com/truthout.org
According to Technorati, Truthout is one of the Top 100 Overall news sites on the net. http://technorati.com/search?return=sites&authority=all&q=truthout&x=0&y=0
According to Compete, Truthout has recently surpasssed Alternet in unique visitors. http://siteanalytics.compete.com/truthout.org+alternet.org/
According to Facebook, Truthout's Page has more fans, faster ads, and higher engagement than Alternet's. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Truthout/83865976093 http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/AlterNet/17108852506?ref=ts
( talk) 18:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC) 76.87.57.127 ( talk) reply
Ed Wood's Wig - I updated the article where you asked for citations. Thanks for pointing out those needed citations, I think the entry for Truthout is stronger because of it. I hope this will help to allay your concerns. Matt43 ( talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Well Ed Wood's Wig, your argument is weak and based on the evidence supplied here it's abundantly clear that Truthout has enormous value and you are violating Wikipedia rules by being inherently biased. The votes to keep truthout outnumber those who want to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 ( talk) 21:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I'd like you, Ed Wood's Wig, to supply articles ABOUT every other news sources that is listed on Wikipedia and for those articles that fail to meet the same standards you apply to Truthout should be deleted. You are now on record stating that is the litmus test you are applying here. Each and every comment you make reeks of bias. Perhaps if you disclosed your identity we could see if perhaps you are a disgruntled former employee or someone who was affiliated with truthout. The point being that your argument for deletion does not appear to be genuine. It appears to be based on an issue that is much more personal in nature and your comment, "Leopold's false reporting aside," is clear cut evidence of that.
The fact of the matter is this: Truthout is widely read and cited by numerous mainstream and independent outlets and the people on this discussion thread have made their case by providing us with the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 ( talk) 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment - so far, we have a large volume of SPA support, but non-SPAs are only the nominator plus one delete and one keep. We need some more independent views. JohnCD ( talk) 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I cannot believe that no one is calling out Ed Wood's Wig for his continued bias and ridiculous rationale for deleting Truthout. Since when do Wiki articles on media organizations cite articles written ABOUT said media organization? That is complete BS. Maybe articles about MSM publications like the NYT but where are the articles ABOUT alternet and mother jones and buzzflash and common dreams? Where are the discussion threads about deleting those articles? I am unaware of people sitting around writing articles saying "hey the NYT is great!" or "hey look what alternet did!" Why is Ed Wood's g singling out Truthout? And why does he or she continue to deny that the beef he or she has is about Leopold? It's so utterly apparent! Has Ed Wood's Wig applied the same broad brush to the NYT which reported that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and relied on the shoddy reporting of Judith Miller? This is really a ridiculous attempt to breathe life into a four year old story about Karl Rove. People have moved on from it as evidenced by the numerous links that cite truthout and Leopold's work in general, including this story in the NYT from earlier this week http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/the-justice-department-seeks-evidence-of-crimes-in-the-gulf/?partner=rss&emc=rss
surely, if these reputable publications find value in the content truthout publishes other do as well. But Ed Wood's Wig, who wears his or her bias on his or her sleeve, wants to make it difficult by saying there aren't any articles ABOUT truthout. Well, Ed Wood's Wig, people don't sit around all day writing articles about news organizations. And it's not the fault of truthout if there aren't any articles of that nature. But if you delete truthout you must begin an exhaustive review of every other article on news organizations and begin the process of deleting them as well if they do not meet the same standard applied to truthout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 ( talk) 19:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I brought up alternet buzzflash and common dreams. Whee are the articles ? where are the articles about those publications? I see none. And I expect you to respond with links to all three not just alternet. I think this needs to be taken to higher authorities at Wikipedia. Ed Wood's Wig is biased and no one person should have this much power particularly if they are so biased so as not to even consider any other argument than his or her own self righteous claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 ( talk) 19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Link please so we can all see who the reputable source is that wrote about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.72.222 ( talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
FWIW, Ed Wood's Wig represents the inherent problems associated with Wikipedia. One person's bias trumps the will of others. You've already been outvoted Ed. Perhaps the overall rules in general need to change. This is really self-serving and Ed is doing a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia and the article in general. Had it not been for the snarky remarks Ed made about truthout perhaps the discussion may have gone in a different direction. But from the get go, Ed made it abundantly clear his issue with Truthout is personal. I still chuckle at his uninformed comment about Democracy Now not being a reputable source. How can a show that interviews people, newsmakers that is, on camera not be reputable? Perhaps this is all about Ed's politics. Ed have you been trolling the entries of the right wing publications? Because if you haven't I certainly will and will demand you do the same with those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Actually, I will assist you Ed. Here's the link to Townhall.com. Delete away. There is absolutely nothing here ABOUT this incredibly popular website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townhall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 22:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Ed, here's another: RedState. Another popular website. Not a single article about them from a reputable source. Delete away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 22:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
And yet another. Mediaite. One very brief mention from the WaPo. Fails in every other category. Delete please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediaite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 22:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
FrontPageMagazine.com is yet another ripe for deletion. Start the thread. Nothing in here but NEGATIVE press from Media Matters. But that's not a standard to keep an article, according to Ed Wood's Wig. So they too should be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontpagemag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 22:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm actually right about all of them. Not might be right. And that is merely a sample of what I have found. I fully intend to dig up every news organization article listed on Wikipedia and provide all of the links here and demand you address them in the same exact manner. Then, I intend to contact the wiki users who edit those articles as well as the individuals at these news organizations, and alert them to your despotic intentions. That is now my mission. I have thus far found 27 articles about news organizations that, under the criteria you demand is adhered to, would make these articles worthy of deletion. And these are not lowbrow publications. Some are very popular. So if you want to be a policeman you're going to have to police the whole neighborhood.
Moreover, Ed Wood's Wig, you are fully capable of juggling more than one item. So, you should swiftly begin deletion discussion articles on all of these other publications. There's no reason why this can't be discussed simultaneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 06:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I have finished collecting most of the article entries, Ed, that would clearly fall under your guidelines for deletion (and since you seem to be the only one here wanting to enforce it I am calling it your guidelines). There are 87. So whenever you are ready to tackle each and every one of these I will post all of the links. So no more singling out one news company over another. For every "lefty" news portal you need to balance it out with one from the right side. That will show you are not biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Once again, Ed, you are WRONG, BIASED, and MISLEADING. The book citations are absolutely NOT from a majority of vanity presses. There are major publishers there: Harper Collins, Random House, St. Martins and they are included in the footnotes and that is apparent to anyone who wants to see it. Ed, at this point, I am personally going to appeal to wikipedia and have you banned for blatant bias or have your editing privileges revoked. You have failed to address the other websites that I have taken the time to cite here. Particularly the right wing websites that would also fall into the deletion categories. You continue to single out truthout and continue to try and claim that there aren't any legitimate sources referencing the website. You have a grudge. Plain and simple. Why not just admit it and stop trying to pretend you don't. You have done a horrible, horrible job of stating your case. What you have done is avoided citing the so-called "legitimate" sources that have linked to or referenced truthout and instead have gone out of your way to dig up sources YOU claim are illegitimate. YOU ARE BIASED. What you want, Ed, is to delete the article despite the fact that you have been proven wrong time and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.156.86 ( talk) 20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't even know what this article is--a record label? A compilation album? A soundtrack? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Indenting the vote of an indef-blocked sockpuppet. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 13:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Tim Song ( talk) 03:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable list of frat meetings (see WP:TRIVIA) that does not warrant an article. Most of its sources come from the fraternity itself, and many of its editors are fraternity members. Wikipedia is not a frat's pledge manual. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou ( talk) 18:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)— Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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}} . |
Keep. This biennial convention is not just a "frat meeting." This is the supreme governing body of an organization that has initiated about a quarter of a million men. NYCRuss ☎ 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Merge back into main article. I suspect that the Grand Conclaves are of little note outside the fraternity. Mangoe ( talk) 19:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep. Lists of meetings for the entire organization may be valid and represent an easily separable portion. Naraht ( talk) 20:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Notes about AFD:
To those who prefer a merge, the AFD proposing editor's objection is not that the information is on a seperate page, it is that it exists on Wikipedia at all. From the language, I do not believe that a merge would satisfy the proposing editor.
Also, I find it a little odd that the {{Not a ballot}} was used given that neither of the criteria on WP:Before (expect the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia) or (actual occurance of same) have occured. Naraht ( talk) 20:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Keep -- this is a listing of biennial meetings of a historically notable organization. Similar listings concerning a single organization are commonplace on wikipedia (see below) and, as noted by Naraht above, do not seem to fit the examples in WP:NOT.
jheiv talk contribs 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
More Fraternity / Sorority National Meeting Lists:
jheiv talk contribs 20:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep This list meets WP:list and it is a list of notable events on a notable organization. It clearly qualifies as a standalone list, not to be merged into the main article. Inclusion criteria are clear, concise and not indiscriminate.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 01:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Skoot Larson’s Biography
California native Skoot Larson has been in a music fan from birth. By age six, Skoot had acquired a trumpet, and fascinated by his father’s jazz collection, Skoot would play along with records of Louis Armstrong or Pete Daily’s Chicagoans. He later switched his musical efforts to the baritone saxophone.
Skoot also discovered books at an early age, and enjoyed writing short stories from his elementary school days through maturity, often featuring musicians and jazz music in his writings.
Over the years, Skoot has written restaurant, theater, and music reviews for such publications as the Long Beach Press Telegram, the Goleta Sun, and the Signal Hill Tribune as well as historical monographs for scholarly journals. His first jazz mystery novel, “The No News is Bad News Blues” was published in February of 2007 by Author House, Bloomington, Indiana and Milton Keynes, England.
Skoot’s first career as a radio disc jockey and radio talk show host required the young writer to move around America, and eventually Skoot lived for a time in Australia and England. Skoot also expanded his career interests, working as a behavioral therapy counselor, college instructor, musician and publisher.
In 1999, Skoot moved back to his home town if San Pedro and completed his Master of Arts degree in Humanities – Jazz Music History from California State University Dominguez Hills. While attending classes, he served as Conductor and Tour Guide on the Port of Los Angeles Waterfront Red Car Line’s historic “Pacific Electric” streetcar.
Skoot served his country with US Amphibious Forces in Viet Nam, as well as deploying with the team that picked up the Apollo 10 astronauts when their capsule landed in the Pacific. He retired from the U. S. Coast Guard Reserve as a Lieutenant after writing the Port of Los Angeles Anti-Terrorism Plan for the 1984 Olympics.
In 2013, Skoot retired to Rockport, Texas, where he launched a new series of mystery novels featuring Dave Holman, the Texas detective along with a novel of political satire, The Palestine Solution and a humorous spiritual novel, The Testament of Jessica Crystal. Skoot also writes a series of humorous fantasy featuring King Irv, a Jewish king in fifth century England.
Skoot’s primary loves are acoustic jazz, detective fiction, Wagnerian opera and cats. To date, Skoot has published ten novels and an anthology of his poetry. His latest novel is a humorous fantasy, King Irv’s Big Adventure.
(UTC)
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and Google shows nothing special. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This article adds nothing at all to Wikipedia. The article Cantons of Switzerland already contains all the information in this stub, and the table found in that article contains a sortable column with the area of each canton. No point in merging, as there's nothing in this article that isn't already covered in Cantons of Swizterland, so I move it be deleted Jeppiz ( talk) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, removed by another editor. Article fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The comments by Location and especially Stifle are persuasive. This is a coatrack as it stands. Even if it weren't, I'm unsure how the subject could maintain a stand-alone article. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a Coatrack / Soapbox article. Even if it weren't, I don't believe it's a notable subject. Dogweather ( talk) 07:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced BLP, unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (Sticky prod was removed because IMDb is "a source".) His "best known for" role is as a small child in the backstory portion of a slasher flick. Not a major role in any sense. Mostly voicework since then, none of it of clear notability, much of it clearly not (redlinked productions, characters incidental to the storyline, etc.). SummerPhD ( talk) 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to SummerSlam until the event becomes closer. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:ROUTINE. TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 16:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Does not meet the GNG. The only mentions of this website on Google News is in a handful of local Milwaukee press items. Fæ ( talk) 16:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per WP:G12 by J.delanoy ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Anturiaethwr Talk 23:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I feel such an article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, it may be construed as an attack on Microsoft. Shashwat986 ( talk) 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill ( talk) 15:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete - I can find no indication of notability as an author. The books do not appear to have garnered significant critical review, and in the case of My Iranian Matriarchs, is self-published through PublishAmerica. Her gallery has had some minor coverage in local press. See [20], and [21] for examples. But this is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non Notable student event. - bordering on promotional. Codf1977 ( talk) 15:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.— Kww( talk) 23:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. I can find no substantive treatment of this person in reliable, independent sources that would satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO or the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Deor ( talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
*Keep Notable in Britain for her leading work in the area of Cyberbullying, and as a speaker and trainer known for her work with young men.
Inniverse (
talk)
03:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Local radio show which doesn't appear to be notable, no 3rd party refs or sources and written with probable COI. Was prodded and deleted over a year ago and recently restored by request by User:Fabrictramp, not sure who requested Jac16888 Talk 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
USER:Techtalkradio Hi. Thanks for the Debate - I am the Creator of this Post and did it to direct listeners to the Wikipedia Page and utilize Wikipedia for all types of content. I have intended it to be informational and to provide insight to the Broadcast Radio Show and TV Segments, As far as this account being blocked, when did that happen or did it? There is another Radio Show calling themselves Techtalk Radio in Australia, is there possible confusion with that show? We have been on the air since 1996, written about in Books on Broadcasting and I shave served as Moderator on panels at CES and as a professional broadcaster for over 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.119.153 ( talk) 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Another target of our newest(?) serial deprodder; prod rationale was "Non-notable person, unreferenced, not even clear that this is a real person". In any event, I can find no substantive treatment of this perhaps-living person in reliable, independent sources, nor evidence that any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR are satisfied. Deor ( talk) 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to heterochromia. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. Tim Song ( talk) 03:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence that "fictional characters with heterochromia" has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. These characters have no relation to each other apart from one minor physical characteristic, useful for making a character remarkable, frightening, prdestined, or whatever the author wants with it. A category may be feasible. Fram ( talk) 14:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N, it is just a cliché. There is no significabt coverage in reliable sources apart from the list of hockey teams itself. I doubt the article can be ever expanded without WP:SYN or something like that. Blacklake ( talk) 14:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Another target of our newest(?) serial deprodder; prod rationale was "Non-notable person, unreferenced, not even clear that this is a real person". In any event, I can find no substantive treatment of this perhaps-living person in reliable, independent sources, nor evidence that any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR are satisfied. Deor ( talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non- notable company. Since it only launched on May 24, 2010, it has hardly had time to yet become notable. Although it is described as "award winning", there are no mentions of what awards it may have won. The only references given are from the firm's own website. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The company has actually been around for 4 years now. It was formerly The KBuzz but changed its name on May 24th, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmalzone ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I changed it around a bit so that there are more secondary sources, awards, etc. Please review again. Kmalzone ( talk) 15:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Blatant Search Marketing Practices in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.119.64 ( talk) 11:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Textbook dictionary definition, plus examples of usage (which also belong in a dictionary). There's no encyclopedic content here. Powers T 13:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD; article is about a non-notable youth footballer who currently fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
In terms of WP:GNG he has had his own article on skysports.com, has been referenced in an article in the daily mail along with a lot of mainstream football sites such as goal.com and and tribal-football.
In terms of WP:Athlete he has signed a professional contract at the club, therefore he is a professional footballer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl barrett ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't know how to format references, but I found this. Which provides plenty of information about the game. http://www.mobygames.com/game/think-quick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.156.100 ( talk) 14:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Learning Company. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non Notable Game Codf1977 ( talk) 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Is this really notable, virtual Louise from PayPal? Can we merge with PayPal? Wintonian ( talk) 11:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
It can be linked with Paypal but cannot be merged with it as PayPal page talk about the company and its history, whereas this page talks about a new technology being used by websites for online customer service. User:Tangenceinc
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable Journal based on the fact that it is not due to be published until 2011 Codf1977 ( talk) 10:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Redirecting may be further discussed on the article's talk page, but closed as 'keep' lacking support for deletion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-Notable video game Codf1977 ( talk) 10:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content). -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non Notable "sport" Codf1977 ( talk) 10:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 03:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Article full of "speculation", Name not known, Location not known, no confirmation it will be built (reminder that the 2010 British GP was meant to be at a new and improved Donington Park but after funding was not forthcoming it has reverted to Silverstone) Codf1977 ( talk) 10:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 12:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The year may well come but think that at the moment this falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL Codf1977 ( talk) 10:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a hoax. If proper sources that indicate notability can be found and authenticated, then the article may be recreated. NW ( Talk) 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete I believe that this article is a hoax, and if it isn't then it is totally non-notable. I can find nothing anywhere else to indicate that Hans Adolf Von Hindennburg existed. I can find no evidence of the existence of either of the works cited as sources. I cannot even find evidence of the existence of either of the supposed authors of the two works cited. In addition to this, even if the information in the article is true and can be sourced (which I doubt) it does not seem to me to indicate much significance of the man. I shall therefore tag the article for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but I am also making this AfD nomination in case the speedy deletion is declined. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local councillor. Fails WP:POLITICIAN because local councillors are not automatically notable, and fails WP:BIO because there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (the only independent source in the article is a passing mention in a local newspaper). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The non-profit organization that hosts Mississippi's science fiction and fantasy Convention. Very spammy article with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Proposed for deletion because "No reliable sources for this pseudoscientific article. Theory created in The Temple and the Lodge of Baigent and Leigh (of Da Vinci Code fame), it was only picked up (apart from blogs and fora) by Michel Roger Lafosse, the self declared heir to the throne of Scotland. Wikipedia is not the place to propagate such baseless theories." ProD removed by article author (without summary, but other reversals relating to the same article were done "Ex parte and paranoid administrator." [28]). The article currently has two sources, one to an unsigned article at baronage.co.uk, and one to a 1734 source. However, I have been unable to verify the 1734 source, having found instead a 1747 book by the same author, discussing the same thing (the donation of an altar from Oostburg to Gent by Balduin bishop of Tournai), but it places this in 1111 (not 1046) and with Archdeacon Lamberti, not Robert de Bruges. [29] Anyway, even assuming that there has been a Robert, castellan of Bruges in 1046, there is nothing linking him to Robert de Bruce in any reliable source [30], only in the Baigent and Leigh wishful history book "The Temple and the Lodge" [31]. Even as pseudoscience, this has hardly received any attention 38 Google hits There is no evidence that he is the son of a count of Louvain, but he has to be, as this whole story is based on one (supposed) mention of a castellan, the possibility that said castellan moved to Normandy, and the similarities between heraldic symbols in Leuven and Scotland. The missing link was between Leuven and Normandy, so let's fabircate a son of the count of Leuven out of thin air... Funny fiction, but not the thing Wikipedia should be used for. This book has a whole chapter on the Castellans, but doesn't mention Robert de Bruges. Probably because, while there is mention of a Robert (or Robrecht), castellanus of Bruges, there is no mention at all to be found of a "Robert de Bruges" in any source. [32] See e.g. the equally unreliable source where Robert is succeeded by his son-in-law and by a second son-in-law afterwards, who all remained in Bruges and weren't called "De Bruges".
So, to summarize, we have one old document about a "Roberti castellani Brugensis", and everything else in this article, including the title, his ancestors, and his descendants, is fabulation in one book by some pseudo-historical writers, repeated in a few fora and blogs. Fram ( talk) 07:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
it's a fake article i believe YoYaYo123 ( talk) 07:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This article was speedy deleted as an A7 but was recreated during the deletion review. The original speedy was endorsed but there was consensus that the sourcing on this improved version required a discussion before further deletion could be considered. This is a procedural nomination as the closer of the DRV and I thereby express no personal opinion on this article Spartaz Humbug! 06:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Woodridge, Illinois#Education. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Junior High Schools do not fall under WP:NHS and the article has little prospect of meeting the GNG. Fæ ( talk) 06:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete, appears to be a advertsing beard under the guise if a well sourced article. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 06:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No explination as to why the film is notible. Wintonian ( talk) 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable singer. Internet searches have yielded no significant coverage. The one source given in this article is a review where Petrella is not even the primary subject. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable. While there are sources given for this article, in my view they are not significant enough to establish notability. The company itself is really not the primary subject of any of the sources; two of which are performance reviews and one which is really more about the director. My searches for reliable independent source where the company itself is the primary subject (ie not a performance review) have yielded nothing; and really that is what is needed in this case. 4meter4 ( talk) 04:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
1. The write-up in The Cock Tavern Theatre be shortened to one sentence with a link to this article (which had been copied verbatim from there without proper attribution).
2. "longest continuously performed La Boheme of all time" is clearly untrue, as 4meter4 pointed out. [49] The Stage reference merely repeats the company's press release.
In fact. I'm going to fix both issues now. Voceditenore ( talk) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Dubiously disambiguated from vortex. Believers in the paranormal see swirls and they call them vortices. There's not much more to this and no chance for expansion. We don't have articles on vortex (bathtub), vortex (video games), or vortex (swimming holes) for similar reasons. Article seems to have been recreated in defiance of the previous AfD to boot. ScienceApologist ( talk) 03:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. Blocking author and a few of his sockpuppets perpetrating the same hoax. Wknight94 talk 03:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Can not find any reliable sources independent of the subject, thoroughly searched google news archives with no success so does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The infobox for the article hints at the fact that he played for the 1982 Boston Red Sox but here are the complete stats for that team and he is not listed. Articles for career minor leaguers must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject to pass WP:NSPORTS. I realize that WP:NSPORTS is not a policy or guideline but the I believe the lack of reliable sources available speaks for itself. J04n( talk page) 03:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and no assertion of notability is made here. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable athlete. Prsaucer1958 ( talk)
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 12:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
An addition to the Book of Mormon. It does not matter whether it is authentic or not; the only issue here is whether it is notable. I submit that it is not notable and this article is pure spam. Warning. There has already been blatant sock puppetry in the talk page. Expect more here. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 06:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete: it does not meet the notability requirement. Sealednot ( talk) 23:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This article on the Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon is both notable and worthy of notice. The subject matter has been discussed extensively in the following other articles of Wikipedia: • Alvin Smith (brother of Joseph Smith, Jr.) • An Insider's View of Mormon Origins • Angel Moroni • Anthon Transcript • Anti-Mormonism • Archaeology and the Book of Mormon • B. H. Roberts • Book of Mormon anachronisms • Book of Omni • Cumorah • Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. • Golden plates • Joseph Smith, Jr. • Laban (Book of Mormon) • Limited geography model • Linguistics and the Book of Mormon • List of Latter Day Saint movement topics • Lucy Mack Smith • Manuscript • Mark E. Petersen • Mark Hofmann • Mark Hofmann • Mormonism and engraved metal plates • Mormonism and Judaism • Mormonism Unvailed • Origin of the Book of Mormon • Paul R. Cheesman • Plates of Nephi • Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting • Record of the Nephites • Record of the Nephites • Reformed Egyptian • Salamander letter • Search for the Truth (video) • September 21 • Standard Works • Urim and Thummim (Latter Day Saints)
Evidence that this particular article on the subject is both noteworthy and worthy of notice is established, in part, by the extensive debate concerning the claims made by Christopher Marc Nemelka about the Sealed Portion discussed in the article. This debate has continued for several years, as revealed in the following websites, discussion groups, and media coverage:
list of URLs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
axiominvestigator.blogspot.com/.../responses-to-chris-nemelkas-answers.html blog.mrm.org/2010/05/authorized-and-official-biography/ bookofmormononline.net/blog/the-sealed-portion/ books.livingsocial.com/lists/1017083-atheism-agnosticism-religion? bookstore.xmlwriter.net/books/search/1-Christopher+Saint.html dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/LDSgroups/message/2299 en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries en.fairmormon.org/Specific.../Christopher_Marc_Nemelka en.wordpress.com/tag/christopher-marc-nemelka/ en.wordpress.com/tag/the-book-of-mormon/ entreated.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html es.fairmormon.org/FAIRMormon:Portal_de_la_comunidad fr-ch.wordpress.com/tag/the-book-of-mormon/ freesitereview.blogspot.com/ gooleoo.com/.../comment-on-the-sealed-portion-by-getterdone481.html groups.yahoo.com/group/LDSgroups/message/2299 groups.yahoo.com/group/LDSgroups/message/2299 groups.yahoo.com/group/marvelousworkandawonder iipuu.com/youtube.php?vq=nemelka&type=youtube ilovemormons.wordpress.com/.../a-marvelous-work-and-a-wonderful-sequel/ ldsmovement.pbworks.com/Marvelous%20Work%20and%20a%20Wonder marvelousworkandawonder.com memoirsofamormoncynic.blogspot.com/.../sealed-plates.html memoirsofamormoncynic.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/.../sealed-portion-of-book-of-mormon.html mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12907 mormonmatters.org/.../have-you-read-the-sealed-portion-of-the-book-of-mormon-yet/ mybookshop.blackapplehost.com/store/christ1.htm ndgmedia.com/products/Golden-Plates.html news.justia.com onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/.../the-spiritual-wife-doctrine/ packham.n4m.org/prophet2.htm pearlpublishing.net/store/bookdetails/tsp.htm polygamybooks.org/.../why-would-an-american-want-to-convert-to-islam.aspx? prfree.com/index.php?action=preview&id=24607 sealednot.wordpress.com successdb.com/tag/lds+church/2/ thetruth.dontexist.net/O/pdf.php?text&file...pdf www.123people.com/s/christopher+read www.amazon.com/Sacred-not-Secret.../dp/0978526473 www.aolnews.com/topic/christopher-nemelka www.apologeticsindex.org/680-polygamy-sects www.asamonitor.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=18131&pid... www.bookhills.com/The-Sealed-Portion-The-Final-Testament-of-Jesus-Christ-0978526465.htm www.bookhuddle.com/book/2433743/The-Immortal - Cached www.bookrenter.com/the-sealed-portion-the-final-testament-of-jesus-christ-0978526465-9780978526467 www.canadastandard.com/index.php/ct/7 www.connorboyack.com/blog/luciferianism www.couol.com/books/author-Christopher+Marc+Nemelka www.directtextbook.com/.../sealed-portion-the-final-testament-nemelka www.easybooksearch.com/book_description/0916847012 www.examiner.com/Subject-Christopher_Nemelka.html www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon506.htm www.exmormonforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=11025&sid... www.freeread.com/archives/2725.php www.ghostvillage.com/ghostcommunity/lofiversion/index.php?t25833... www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/reply.php?messageid=90367...5... www.groupsrv.com/religion/about109499.html www.irshelp.biz/products/Golden-Plates.html www.iyares.com/books/s/?q=Jesus+the+Final+Days www.josephsmithbiography.com/ www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1463 www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008_09_14_archive.html www.massweed.com/products/Golden-Plates.html www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/11887-lost-pages-of-bom-resurfaced/ www.mormonstruth.org/massacre.html www.mormonthink.com/josephweb.htm www.newsrunner.com/entity/top-stories/christopher-nemelka/.../0/0 www.nydailynews.com/topics/Christopher+Nemelka - Cached - Similar www.puppstheories.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4615 www.shelfari.com/o1518327948 www.thesealedportion.com/ www.univision.com/video/buscar.jhtml?query=+NEMELKA&modifier... www.utlm.org/onlineresources/letters.../2005january.htm www.wikio.com/.../general-books-reviews-49894-page25-sort0,b.html www.wikio.com/.../the-sealed-portion-the-final-testament-of-jesus-christ-8015269,b.html www.wwunited.org www.yasni.de/person/nemelka/%20/nemelka.htm www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5u_jzCzV48 www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXm6VM6LHA |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvessels ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Savonneux, for your comment to mine. Each of the websites, discussion groups, and media references is a "reliable source" in that they are active, productive online discussions, debating the pros and cons of various controversial issues involving the subject matter. More importantly, to respond to your last point, EACH site I have sourced includes specific debate, pro or con, on the specific subject of Christopher Nemelka's claims that the "sealed portion" referenced in this article is what it purports to be.
Please let me know if there is other evidence I can provide you to establish that this article is, indeed, notable and worthy of notice.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvessels ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi Roger, To make certain I understand your comments from various other locations, my personal talk, the discussion page, and other contributors comments, that essentially unless we have 3rd party sources- something published directly about this proposed article content/subject, (and not just one or two but a lot of things that I suppose you or I would might refer to as main stream media) if I read your comments correctly above, you'll be deleting this whole thing a Spam; is that right? - I would think if you could give us more time,(1 or 2 weeks perhaps?) from the simple list that Rod Vessels provided above, that we could provide the "notability required" to justify its ability to comply with Wikipedias requirements and remain as a legitimate article. -Thank you for your time Roger, I do appreciate the efforts you've made to try and help in the way you best see fit- I personally wish I/we could make this work somehow - I believe it would be quite helpful for many as a good source to find information... Do we still have a few days left to find notability reference or are we just wasting everyones time and you've already made up your mind? Sincerely and Thank you- Johnny 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MWAWWIKI ( talk • contribs)
Re: Notability criterion #1 - From Wikipedia:Notability (books), : The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial<ref name="nontrivial"/> published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself,<ref name="independent"/> with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.<ref name="selfpromotion"/>
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 00:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local political group, referenced only to their own website. I cannot find any sign of the significant coverage in reliable sources required to establish notability per WP:N.
I am surprised to see that this article has existed for nearly 5 years. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy nominee, but appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 23:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 00:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Wholly unreferenced BLP, for which I cannot find any reliable sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 02:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Dab page for only two entries, hatnote should be used. — fetch · comms 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. A merge discussion on the article's talk page is encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, should be on Commons. — fetch · comms 01:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, could be merged into List of curves or copied to Commons. — fetch · comms 01:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 03:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a WP:POVFORK from Jacobsen v. Katzer. Jminthorne ( talk) 01:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The content is being modified, as indicated, to a full article. Updating the title is a good idea too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonkawonka ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Courcelles ( talk) 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
no notability shown for this (auto?)bio. duffbeerforme ( talk) 14:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete, simply not notable. I considered tagging this as db-spam, but in any case it lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. 14 days without commentary. The article has never been prodded, so please treat as a contested prod if anyone wants this restored. Courcelles ( talk) 00:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bus company in Veracruz, Mexico. Outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors, I can't find any significant coverage. MidnightDesert ( talk) 06:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 00:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Biography, probably autobio., written in unencyclopedic tone with scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 08:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bus company in Mexico. Vast majority of search hits are for Wikipedia mirrors plus 1 or 2 passing mentions on Spanish websites related to route listings and the such. MidnightDesert ( talk) 08:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable transport company in Mexico. No significant coverage. Most search hits are Wikipedia mirrors, I only found one passing mention on a Mexican website. No claims to notability asserted. MidnightDesert ( talk) 09:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY, should be on Commons. — fetch · comms 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
A search for reference did not find any for the "Fajr-2", There are multiple references for Fajr-3, 4 & 5. Fails WP:N & WP:V, article has been tagged as unreferenced since September 2006 JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Cannot find any reliable sources independent of the subject. The page says that he has released two albums but they are not named and I have not been able to identify them to see if they meet the requirements for WP:MUSICBIO. Perhaps someone more familiar with Bulgarian hip hop can find a source? J04n( talk page) 15:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 00:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Absolutely no indication of the topic's importance. Possibly some google hits but hard to find third-party, non-trivial coverage; also, no third-party non-trivial coverage included in the article. This article, based on its "3 days ago" release and the three links (twitter, blog, official website) smells an awful lot like WP:ADVERT. It may be notable, but there are no links here to prove it. — Timneu22 · talk 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't exactly figure out the topic of this article. It seems to be a how-to guide for some sort of metadata processing, but I can't see this as a valid encyclopedia article. The page should have been speedied soon after creation, since the only significant contributor blanked it; however, a bot misinterpreted the blanking as vandalism, and it's been significantly edited by others since that time. Nyttend ( talk) 00:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 03:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable according to Wikipedia policy on notability WP:ENT. (note: don't be led astray by "number of Google results". Thousands of people called "Sigal Cohen" live in Israel.) Nikonmer ( talk) 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill ( talk) 22:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Article was deleted due to copyright issues that went unaddressed for more than 7 days. Administrative closure without prejudice to relist in case of recreation of an article that addresses the copyright issues, as no consensus was reached at the time of closure. MLauba ( Talk) 11:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Chairmain of Mahindra Satyam. PROD refused, but all the other officers have been speedy tagged. Bringing them here. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily closed as moot. I have redirected this to the newly created article, Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Since the text here was a public domain source text from the US government, a small portion of the actual regulations, I see no urgent need to erase its history or to keep this open. Kudos to User:TJRC for making a proper article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete, this might be speedy able but not too sure. I really don't think we are in the habit of writing or in this case copying and pasting so we have law information if I'm wrong I welcome another experienced editor to close. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Elevating another Mahindra Satyam bio... this is the CEO. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Article was deleted due to copyright issues that went unaddressed for more than 7 days. Administrative closure without prejudice to relist in case of recreation of an article that addresses the copyright issues, as no consensus was reached at the time of closure. MLauba ( Talk) 11:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Speedied, but is the CTO of a notable(?) corporation, Mahindra Satyam. I don't feel comfortable deleting this without AFD support. delete' UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Crazy Anglos. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The subject nor either of his bands seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO, can find no significant independent coverage of the artist. J04n( talk page) 10:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG nothing in gnews
[68]. the article is basically a website for followers of the club, which play in a low level amateur league in
South Australia. it is not like the
Australian Football League or
VFL.
LibStar (
talk)
06:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC, and Google shows nothing. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:HAMMER is not policy, it's an observation that if the name/track order if an upcomming album is not known, then the article is likely to be deleted per other policies/guidelines such as WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. However, when nominating or discussing the deletion of an article, you should base your arguments on the actual policies or guidelines that may apply. In this case the consensus is that the article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL but it may be weak in the WP:NALBUMS department. However, in general there is no consensus to delete this article. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply
violates WP:HAMMER Adabow ( talk) 06:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply