The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
doesnt meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports) 464sfh fhfhfxt767ct ( talk) 02:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC) — 464sfh fhfhfxt767ct ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsuccessful candidate for political office (ran for the state legislature in Washington state) with no other apparent claim to notability. Certainly fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Third-party coverage limited to a smattering of articles in local papers, most of which are no more than cookie-cutter election stories (listing candidates or publishing results) and mention her only in passing. The rest of the refs provided are from her campaign website, her facebook page or simply election results from the local county auditor's website. I can't see how she's passes the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" test. Lincolnite ( talk) 22:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This person doesn't seem to be notable Unixtastic ( talk) 21:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete: Unless this person has been involved in something notable I suggest we delete this page. Isn't there a more domain specific wiki for sportsmen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixtastic ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable high school plays. PROD removed by author. GILO ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY 21:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that this content is not supported by coverage in secondary sources, and as such is excessive in-universe plot detail that is not suitable for an encyclopedia. If someone has genuine intent to transwiki it somewhere useful I will happily assist by undeleting it somewhere temporarily, but consensus is clear it does not belong in Wikipedia in anything like this form. ~ mazca talk 01:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The article is full of original research, it's written with an in-universe perspective and the text is material for a fansite, not Wikipedia. There is nothing notable here that isn't already covered in the many other Neon Genesis Evangelion articles, none of the references seem to be reliable sources and the content doesn't have real-world notability. I believe that this article is a perfect example of fancruft and therefore should be deleted. Jfgslo ( talk) 21:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This one is pretty hard...although it does have some real-world information with "gianax terms" it is unsourced, and the rest is primarially in-universe, plot related. It can't be helped. I go for Delete. Bread Ninja ( talk) 22:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
How is our opinion "fancruft"? Are you sure you even read the guideline???? 1)If we have stricter guidelines, than so be it. maybe the comics ikiproject should have stricter guiselines too. 2)You basically admitted, "notability" to you is based on the personal beliefs rather than WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTE. 3) That's not solving anything, thats basically admitting theres a problem. 4) Then it's pretty clear, there is no real reason within wikipedia standards that this should be kept. for you're second point, i'm not talking about reasoning is fancruft, i'm talkinga bout the article. Bread Ninja ( talk) 00:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply
i'm not trying to twist your words. you should just be clearer and be simpler. i'm just going to say that it's not notable to wikipedia standards. You said it is notable to those who know the subject well, thats basically saying that it's notable to those who know about it , not to wikipedia standards. admitting an article is in=universe is a BAD thing in wikipedia, because we strive for out of universe point of view. And i'm pretty sure, no one has verified the article yet. And considering the size of the article, i would say it isn't. Also violates WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:IINFO. Bread Ninja ( talk) 01:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | This list describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily
in-universe style. Please
help rewrite it to
explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective. (
Learn how and when to remove this message) |
But you suggest to "keep" instead of "redirect". i'm saying there is no information on the glossary to keep it independent. Bread Ninja ( talk) 02:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply
so which is it? keep, merge, delete, or redirect?
(Writing here to avoid too long comment) Gwern, if there is bad faith here it is on your side. This is an AfD, we're not assessing the quality of the sourcing, but the notability, and the
general notability guideline says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article [...] "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". As for sourcing in general,
WP:RS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." If you want to contribute to WP, you have to play by its rules. Also, we're trying to assess the general notability of the topic, and the secondary sources must be about the topic itself, not just about individual elements not directly pertaining to it ("Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail"). I don't see how sourcing the pronunciation of the word "Seele" to Broderick would make an Evangelion glossary notable. This info could actually be located anywhere and is not proving the need of a glossary. Same for the Fujie source, which only quotes dialogues to retrace one event in Adam's backstory. I see nothing here advocating for a glossary of each term (creatures, organization, places, concepts) ever coined by the show. Also, video games based on the show or databooks are not independent secondary sources, since both are directly tied to the show through licensing/sponsoring contracts, and/or authorial implication.
The nomination is not wrong in any way. Identify what would be wrong according to you, and say why it would be wrong by citing precise examples. Otherwise, your claims mean nothing. If the nom' was really wrong, I guess the majority of people here would have noticed it and would not have supported it. And accusing the nominator of "lying" is a blatant
personnal attack, and this kind of behavior has nothing to do here (or anywhere else).
The Protoculture Addicts article to which you refer may appear to be a reliable source, but given the number of people who deem this kind of article non-notable, one source won't be enough, notability means significant coverage. In fact, even if we could find reliable sources, the problems of
in-universe perspective and
plot-only approach would remain.
Folken de Fanel (
talk)
09:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was Already A7'ed by another admin Jclemens-public ( talk) 23:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Unreferenced Kittybrewster ☎ 19:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Appears to have been G7'ed per request Jclemens-public ( talk) 23:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
essay, non encyclopedic Wuh Wuz Dat 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Article was published for a school assignment. I will find another location to publish it. Please go ahead and delete the page. Thanks. User:Dmarusiak —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC). reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This article is original research and has been tagged for no references since January, 2009. It is a POV fork of Left-right politics and the Political spectrum. TFD ( talk) 18:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted. TN X Man 17:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No sources provided and none from Google. No assertion of notability. WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 17:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to History of Leeds United A.F.C.. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Duplicates basic information from Leeds United A.F.C. and then partially expands the stats with uncited, not entirely neutral commentary. NtheP ( talk) 16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Leeds United Honours is a genuinely fact based page, set up, because I feel the Leeds United A.F.C. page does not show the full extent of Leeds United's history. In terms of the trophies Leeds United have won and the finals they have reached. I want to put across an unbiased and neutral tone, which support both sides of the argument. I try to describe each event as unbiased as I possibly can. I feel page viewers deserve to see a Leeds United page which shows honours won, events, runners up medals etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas347 ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)<! -- Thomas347 ( talk) 11:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This article does not duplicate basic information and events of Leeds United A.F.C., because Leeds United A.F.C., does not describe specific events such as The European Cup Final, Cup Winners Cup Final etc… Such as Referee Christos Michas's controversial decisions, which cost Leeds the Cup Winners Cup. Leeds United A.F.C. does not contain any of the finals Leeds have reached, as well as not stating any of the trophies Leeds have come runners up in. For example, Division 1. I describe specific events in an unbiased and neutral tone which supports both sides of the article. I believe this article is fit for purpose and should stay. -- Thomas347 ( talk) 11:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 02:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Sorry but this is a slam-dunk case of violating WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER as the title, release date, and track list for this album are not yet confirmed. The "reference" given in this article is just a blue link to a section of the band's article where the same upcoming album is discussed, and sources there only point to rumors and speculation. Wikipedia will still be here when this album is much closer to reality. -- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Article is almost entirely plot and "quotes" ( WP:TRIVIA?). Lacking any information about the book's notability and/or impact and/or critical reception, this is a delete. Strange Passerby ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism for a video game "genre"; borderline speedy-able as no sources indicating notability are given. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Well im new here and I dont know how to began but i'll try, I create the article. A agree that the genre is not notable for many games but like its mentioned in the article it was coined by the Yu Suzuki for his game, Shenmue because the series is too hard to categorize. So its a special genre for this game only. There are some websites like giantbomb.com , videogamesdaily.com/ and gamergeorge.info mentioned it and recognized it. Faithtour ( talk) 17:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It is a clear outcome in this case.
The keep !votes are almost entirely from new accounts located in the relevant local area. It is also reasonable to believe that at least some of those !votes were procured by an "email" referred to by one of them. Even so, these keep !votes universally fail to support the inclusion of the article by reference to accepted inclusion standards such as WP:N and WP:GNG. The remaining keeps (eg MichaelQSchmidt) do, but it is clear that the view that the subject has received significant coverage does not have consensus. The delete !voters have acknowledged the existence of some sources - in particular coverage of the legal action and one other article in "Eastside City Arts" - but have formed the view that the coverage is not significant. That view has a clear consensus support by reference to accepted inclusion standards. Mkativerata ( talk) 18:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Very low on reliable sources to show notability. The website shows a current issue, despite the previous notice that publication was ceasing. I'd say, unless we can find sourcing that explains exactly what the heck is going on with this paper, we shouldn't be covering it. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Is SarekOFVulcan a shill for an enemy of The Sun newspaper? Probably. Looking through 'History' for the article shows a surprising number of entries by him/her. But again THAT'S HIS RIGHT. No one should take ANYTHING in Wikipedia to be the truth since it can be changed by anyone.
oth for and against, the actions of this newspaper.
Since it's been publishing for 5 years and - with the exception of a 3 or 4 month hiatus - has been distributed throughout Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond and Woodinville (that I know of) it certainly isn't out of business or defunct. I pick it up at George's the first of every month.
So, if you keep it, here are my suggested changes:
I don't know how to sign this so it must go in as unsigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.8.22 ( talk) 23:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) — 71.164.8.22 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I read The Eastside Sun from cover to cover every issue because it is NOT like a small town paper, it picks fights with corrupt police and names worthless city employees and backs it up with evidence and research. Its more like The Shinbone Star than a fishwrapper. I especially take offense at Tony Fox who is working tirelessly to delete this publication because "Dodgy is my opinion of the suit from what I've read about it (the links here, mostly) and based on long experience with similar claims." Similar claims?? He attacks one newspaper because he's heard something about other lawsuits by other people and he has the mental capabilities to determine that they are exactly the same? Perhaps he could save us money by replacing The Supreme Court. Has he read the depositions and arguments from both sides? Does he know the three city employees? It would be amazing if he did because I live here and I don't. Anyway, I don't have an Wiki-account but my name is Marilynne Reade. BTW FischerQueen, you may feel enough superiority to we serfs to refer to us as Silly People as you did in history:
but at least we have the courtesy to make reasoned arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.8.22 ( talk) 21:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC) — 71.164.8.22 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Very heartfelt apology Susan. Calling people ignorant is SO much better.
We ARE a small newspaper by any standards - established July 2006.
We ARE controversial.
We ARE embroiled in not one but two lawsuits.
We ARE occasionally A--holes and we've made some enemies.
But in our defense we apply time-honored checks and balances to our editorials. We don't seek the ouster of a public official until their actions rise to the level of inexcusable. We don't seek the termination of a police officer until 3 separate sources swear to his corruption. We sought intermediate steps prior to pursuing the lawsuit. We met with the superior of the guilty parties only to have her lie to our faces. When no action was taken we took action.
Wikipedia is a first-time-ever experiment where anyone can edit anything. It is a resource that every newspaperman on the planet probably uses at one time or another, myself included. I've watched our page over the years and even contributed to it - something I learned later was a no-no. Just today I researched House M.D., A cooking show with Gen Anderson and The HMS Britannic, the sister ship of the Titanic (only to learn we were misspelling it as Britanic). Needless to say, Wikipedia is an invaluable resource.
But this bickering has to stop. Yes, I too find it interesting that a few editors find us so terribly interesting and in need of deletion, but - like being in a crowded bar at closing time - you can make book on the fact we will always attract that one 'special' person who will go on to make our life a living hell...
I've reviewed the edits of all the 'Delete' editors mentioned and we are not the only article they've ever worked on, edited, nominated for deletion or heavily censored. There is no reason to believe there is any vendetta going on, just watching, watching, watching. Day and night, 24/7... watching us. Wow, suddenly I got this chill. Anybody got a Xanax?
In closing, we've been proud to be listed in the pages of Wikipedia and, if we are to be deleted, then so be it. Feel free to contact me to verify this message's authenticity. Our phone number and email can be found on page two of this month's issue available online (www.eastsidesun.com) and at newsstands in Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Woodinville, Issaquah (look it up, it's a real city) and Renton.
But knock off the bickering or, I swear to god, I'm coming back there with a switch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.1 ( talk) 23:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
To regular contributors, I am VERY sorry for doing this and will face the music for being disruptive if necessary, but it seems that some on this thread will not take the time to click on a simple link offered over and over again. PLEASE NOTE: At the very core of the issue, THIS is what we are talking about...base your arguments for keep on the following:
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article. with apologies The Eskimo ( talk) 03:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual. He had a two year minor league career. Muboshgu ( talk) 15:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Musical group of questionable notability, possible COI/self-promotion. While there are claims of notability, the references are unclear - the ESPN link does not mention the band, and the search function at that link shows zero returns. The other references are either passing mentions, primary sources, or an interview with one bandmember, not the group. TheRealFennShysa ( talk) 14:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Timbecile ( talk) 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was already speedily deleted by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Autobiography without established notability. JNW ( talk) 14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 02:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable character outside of game. Article is mostly primary source re-iteration of the BioShock 2 plot. MASEM ( t) 14:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Was once a contested PROD, but I still cannot see any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, which are needed to pass WP:CORP. This is a failed airline project, which was founded and shut down again in November/December 2005. so the encyclopedic impact should be very low. Only sources to be found are either trivial directory entries proving that the company existed, or some news snippets describing the initial intentions. That's just not significant. Per aspera ad Astra ( talk) 09:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Fork of Hinduism, difficult to make POV almost a G10 Ϣere SpielChequers 12:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 02:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Rajput word is used no where in sanskrit literature.They are later addition to indian society.Some of them descendant from Huna, Gurjara hordes whereas some from aboriginals.Rajput and many other castes clains descendant from God rama that doesn't means God Rama was rajput or else.
For more info visit (famous historian V. A. smith) : http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8XXGhAL1WKcC&pg=PA413&dq R Mkrestin ( talk) 10:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
If someone has an objection to word Rajput : the Title name can be changed to List of Avatars(God) born in Kshatriya or List of Avatars(God) born in Royal Families. As far a I understand the list is comprehensive and should not be deleted. As far as I understand the reason for asking deletion, is objection to word Rajput and not the content of the article by original proposer. Although, in India all Rajput claim their descant from Kshatriya. R P Jethwa ( talk) 15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi!! Matthew, what I was trying to clarify was that Mkrestin has put deletion notice citing objection to use of word Rajput. He has been editing all articles, removing the word Rajput wherever it is used by anyone and deleting or editing without any logic. See : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raghav Rajkul.png, Bachal Deletion request, removed the image of Lord Rama from articles like Bachal, Jayas. Are there any administrator sitting up there taking notice of this vandalism going on in wikipedia. Further, all I was trying to say was that whoever created the page may not have the idea, about wikipedia guidelines. But since list is exhaustive and can be useful for someone researching on India & Hinduism related topic, to save it, maybe, it can also be made or shifted to a [[Category : List of Avatars(God) born in Royal Families]] of Category : List of Indian Gods born in Raoyal families, if not as a page so that article remains as a category. However, it is up to community to decide the fate of article. I just wanted to give my opinion. Ever since I have became a wikipedian, I have come to understand that, there are many persons, who want to prove their point of view and Wikipedia is becoming like internet game, where anyone can come play, prove their point, fight and go away. Sometimes, there are gang of persons involved, one proposes deletion, another seconds it. Sometimes, same person uses several accounts to make it's voice heard. As far as Rajput & Kshatriya theory is concerned : I believe all Rajput are Kshatriya, if not vice-versa. And if someone, wants to say Rajput are not Kshatriyas, then he must give genuine links to such an original idea. Maybe he could re-write history of Indian sub-continent. R P Jethwa ( talk) 18:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Bachal article was a lot copy paste from Sisodia article that's why i put that notice.I request to the fellow editors to check the list mentioned at the end of this article as they seems to have no link with Bachal clan except last inline links. Mkrestin ( talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi!!. Going one step further I have renamed the page List of Hindu avatars born as Kshatriyas, as Rajput would be inappropriate looking at historical background. As far as your question Hindu is too specific, looking at the list it contains lot of name of Jain religion. Let the community take debate further. R P Jethwa ( talk) 02:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Further, in many of the edits user Mkrestin has given edit summary as use of word Rajput & Kshatriya together is not proper. They are different.... And removed word Rajput. IF that is so he should be bold enough to remove the first line The Rajput are one of the major social groups of India, historically associated with the Kshatriya martial caste in Hindu society. from Rajput page. and let us see the floodgates open. R P Jethwa ( talk) 02:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I do not have any personal bias against you or any one. If you thought article was bad in taste than Deletion policy cites alternative to deletion by editing, or giving proper reason for deletion and not reasons like Rama was not a Rajput. Becasue, the page contains rathar more names of Jain Tirthankar rathar than Hindu Gods. I have my-self removed the image of Lord Rama from this page as I thought it to be of no use here. All I was trying to say was that deletion is easy but if page can be improved and saved it is rather good. Same is the case with File:Raghav_Rajkul.png, which has no criteria for deletion. If u r saying Ram was not Rajput, that is okay but what about many clans claiming descant from Raghukul. R P Jethwa ( talk) 09:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The subject fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a competitive, first-team match for a professional football club, nor has he made a senior international appearance for a FIFA-recognised nation. Furthermore, there are no significant third-party sources that cover this individual. – Pee Jay 10:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
An article I prodded a few months ago, I can't remember why but I think the editor of the original page had a COI, and this article seems identical. Businessman who unfortunately fails WP:GNG and can't claim notability through any of the WP:BIO guidelines. Bigger digger ( talk) 10:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Possible sources have been quite exhaustively considered, and the consensus is to delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability at the moment. I will withdraw this nomination if sources can be found to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (music). Cunard ( talk) 09:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Lack of reliable sources. Three of the references are based on the ideas of one man, Norm Hansen, who apparently presented ideas at an American Physical Society meeting here and here. The other reference is somewhat outdated; 15 years ago, there was still some doubt about the origin of gamma-ray bursts. At this point, that is not the case, and antimatter comets are not the progenitors. There are no peer reviewed articles that I could find backing any of the claims made in this article. James McBride ( talk) 09:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The player did not made his debut in national level, and seems not yet made his debut in state league level either (state level "professional" or not is disputed). Matthew_hk t c 09:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb ( talk) 08:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There's a strong suggestion that this is a vanity autobiography, and the distinct concerns over the validity and verifiability of the claimed BBC and CNN coverage cast a further negative light. Should actual, verifiable, significant coverage that can be demonstrably sourced to first-hand copies of reliable sources become available, then the article can be recreated - but until that time the consensus here holds that it is not appropriate for us to continue to host this poorly-sourced and poorly-written autobiography. ~ mazca talk 00:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. E. Fokker ( talk) 01:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Zap this, with no prejudice against a future; properly, reliably, and independently sourced; and not as poorly written; article should one arise in the future. This is not in any way how biographies should be written, especially when writing about onesself. Uncle G ( talk) 01:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Despite two relists there does not seem to be a strong consensus over whether the notability guideline for professors is fulfilled, or indeed even if it's the best way of determining the notability of the subject. Referencing of the article has nonetheless improved over the course of the debate, but it does not seem to have attracted a strong consensus either way. ~ mazca talk 01:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail WP:PROF. As far as I can tell, he doesn't fit criteria 2-9, and he probably doesn't meet criterion 1, either. Also, it's worth noting that this was created by User:Lidiavianu, whose name is mentioned in the article and who added this spam-like link to another article. Also editing the article was User:Bezeauainfuriata, creator of—you guessed it— Lidia Vianu. So there's probably a conflict of interest/sockpuppetry going on as well. Biruitorul Talk 20:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as G12 by Diannaa. NAC on the AfD discussion. Regent of the Seatopians ( talk) 00:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. According to Gnews, this show was only announced yesterday; thus, it's too soon to have an article about it. I actually feel this article should be incubated, not deleted, but since WP:AI doesn't list a way to execute incubation without first going through a deletion process, I brought it here (and why the article was originally named Homelanda is beyond me). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
In fact, this article is not about an airline, but about a proposed measure to cope with the financial crisis in Russia, thus being highly speculative ( WP:CRYSTAL). The plan was scrapped, and as its impact was very low, the whole thing does not seem to be notable for a stand-alone article. Per aspera ad Astra ( talk) 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The original nomination was very clearly valid and the early participation would have supported a delete outcome - but a wholesale rewrite of the article late in the AfD process by Silver seren ( talk · contribs) appears to have done a good job of salvaging a sourced encyclopedic article here. I can certainly see potential concerns that this may still duplicate content at Green building, but any merge discussions in that vein don't need an AfD. ~ mazca talk 01:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Access Denied – talk to me 05:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable "philosophy". Article states "no other references can be provided seeing as how this philosophy is being made public through the use of wikipedia." Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 04:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The nominator has given a thoughtful rationale for deletion. The rationale has received significant support, and defence, from other editors. There are of course a number of keep arguments made. But the bases for a number of them have been refuted: a couple of delete !voters have gone to significant and successful lengths to do so on a policy basis. For example "no policy/guideline basis for setting the GNG aside" is a rationale refuted as having been made without reference to WP:NOTNEWS. Not all the keeps are weak - a number of them directly deal with NOTNEWS - but a number of them have been given less weight due to the refuted "news coverage=inclusion" view.
The numbers here seem to be 7-5 to delete (with one keep being explicitly "weak"), but it is the balancing of the arguments that has tipped it firmly into "consensus to delete" territory.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a difficult decision, but I think the right one. There will be some who feel that the news item went viral and is notable, and that deletion must be due to censorship or prudery. It isn't. It's because this really is, in this day and age, "just routine news". Emails are routinely forwarded whose creators didn't want them to be, they routinely get mass circulated, a huge number of things "go viral", and many people put details of sexual performance of past partners online or send them to close friends - for fun, to embarrass exes, or for other reasons.
By way of comparison, many news items of significance (murders, speeches, suicides, tragedies and "funny page" news) have long been considered "routine" even though they routinely gain widespread coverage in reliable sources. We don't document everything. This seems to be of the same kind - if we can agree that most suicides, murders or other horrific incidents are "just routine" and salaciousness isn't a factor, then "embarrassing emails sent out by friends that get commented on for being widely circulated lulz" probably are of the same kind too. Perhaps only the most notable or those with some specific reason, should be given their own articles.
In brief, I'm not sure at all that this meets the spirit of WP:NOT. The question is whether "person writes embarrassing email (content irrelevant) that a friend forwards and goes viral" is sufficient for WP:NOT#NEWS.
In this case there are a lot of cites, it has gained mentions in reliable sources and the letter of WP:GNG. But where as a community do we set the hurdle of WP:NOT#NEWS to ensure not every last widely circulated internet mistake becomes a Wikipedia article? Internet circulated emails, memes and other viral matters - even those commented in reliable sources - are as routine as political speeches, suicides, murders, and funny page or human interest news snippets. This one seems to be "just another person who sent an email about their sex partners that got forwarded by a friend to the world". They're all but routine. Hence after some deep thought, nominated at AFD. FT2 ( Talk | email) 19:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
It's a consideration (and the good faith is not in question). But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" ( WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?
It just doesn't seem so, or at least there's not currently evidence of the possibility ( WP:CRYSTAL). Some events do have significant impact on a controversy and are seen or will be seen as significant points of enduring notice in the debate. But right now we don't have good evidence this is (or is seen as, or will be) anything more than "another privacy breach controversy of similar kind as many many others have been or will be". FT2 ( Talk | email) 06:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was userfied, then both copies deleted (?) by JzG. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 01:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm borderline on this one. The article asserts notability (recipients of awards, etc) but it's a close thing. Either way, if it's kept, it needs to be sourced and cleaned up... rahaeli ( talk) 02:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The article remains in a fairly poor state, but sources have been found and at worst it remains a small and harmless stub. There seems to be no particular consensus to delete it at this time. ~ mazca talk 01:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The only source I can find for this is a brief mention here, so I don't think this is notable enough for its own article. It says it's been copied to Wiktionary, but I can't find it anywhere, so a transfer to there might be in order. — focus 02:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. The original author of this and other such articles has not been around for a while, and Lord knows where he got his information! It could also be merged with Entremés, but that article, too, suffers from lack of sources. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Waffle. I have no objection to this being rescued, now that Cnilep has moved in that direction. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 18:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Last Comic Standing 6. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Article was a redirect and recently changed back to an article by an SPA. The article still lacks enough sources to justify notability. I feel that it should be changed back to a redirect. Dismas| (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
*Keep The decision to delete a comedian smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. A television and radio broadcast is notible whether it be
a long or short career. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics
who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not
try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information?
PsychClone —Preceding
undated comment added 22:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC). Trolling struck per ANI consensus.
Favonian (
talk)
21:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
To summarize: we have a BLP for which I can find two unreliable sources, both of them indicating the subject's non-notability. Delete. Drmies ( talk) 19:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Not really notable in terms of coverage, lacks third party coverage and no evidence to suggest this article will grow in time. Nowhere to redirect to either. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. If the scrubbing and salvaging suggested by Kimchi.sg doesn't work, we may need to discuss this again. Sandstein 12:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
May nt be notable according to WP:ORG Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 03:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Tournament in a company that was deleted for not meeting WP:CORP (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWA East Coast). Nikki♥ 311 05:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. A description of a type of bodyboarding that does not seem to have sufficient notability for its own article. I have worked to clean up the article a bit but the more I work with it the less I feel that the subject is notable. I removed a couple of spammy references; those that are left are 1) a description of dropknee from a list of bodyboarding maneuvres (some of the text in the article is still a copyvio from that site, though I've removed some of it); 2) a link to fluidzone.com which is not immediately apparent as a reliable source (look at their About us page) - this link is claimed to reference information about the Dropknee World champion, but the information on the site doesn't mention world championships at all; and 3) the site of the competition "Dropknee sessions", used as a reference for that competition, so not a secondary source at all.
I don't doubt that the style exists but as yet there does not seem to be independent notability for it. I would suggest merging the salvageable information from this article into bodyboarding (where it is already mentioned), providing it can be referenced properly.
Note also that Matt Lackey is up for another AfD, and I'm considering also nominating Paul Roach. Those two articles about Dropknee riders have been around for several years without getting any proper sources outside the same websites used to reference Dropknee, which also makes me doubt the notability of the sport itself. bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Dropknee is certainly a sport. The sport is still in its developing stage and hence there are not many reliable sources for the sport. However there is a new website to be released in about a month devoted completely to dropknee and hopefully will have an array of references for the page. Dropknee is considered as a subdivision of bodyboarding however it is actually quite different which is why i originally created the page. The style of riding/method of riding in dropknee differs greatly to bodyboarding and hence a seperate page was neccesary. I recommended that you reconsider your decision to delete the page. I will continue to work on finding reliable sources to further demonstrate the importance/existence/notability of dropknee. I guarantee you that it is a notable sport and is rapidly growing. In regards to the page on Matt Lackey and Paul Roach they do certainly deserve pages. They are both world famous dropkneers. I also ask you to reconsider your decision you have made on those pages. I will continue to find reliable sources for these two pages also. Thankyou, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlync81 ( talk • contribs) 12:20, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
Here are some links to reliable newspapers/magazines/websites which qualify dropknee as a notable source:
If i was to incorporate these links (and others) into the article and improve the article in general would it be accepted as a notable source? I will also do the same for the articles on Matt Lackey and Paul Roach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlync81 ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No one opined in favor of keeping the article in mainspace. I'm deleting this, but I'm treating it as a WP:PROD; i.e. I'll restore on request. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This article about a bodyboarder does not provide a credible claim that the person meets WP:ATHLETE. "Dropknee" is a particular bodyboarding style; there are no reliable sources to verify the importance of the style, nor are there sources to verify that this person is in fact "one of the best dropknee bodyboarders in the world". The article has been around since 2005 and was unreferenced until July this year. The single ref added then is to a website that does not meet WP:RS, and there are no other secondary sources that I can find. bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Family Feud#Home versions covers this topic in more than enough detail. This article is simply the rule book from the home game with a few details about later versions, information which is already included in the parent article. Tagged as unreferenced and orphan since December 2009, and this article lacks notability to be a stand-alone topic. Sottolacqua ( talk) 14:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Notability is not temporary, so I evaluated the discussion in that light. The proposed redirect was fairly well rebuted as well, so I accorded that argument less weight. What was left was a rough consensus to keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
There is only one such store. And it's scheduled to close. This chain was never very large in the first place. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ged UK 09:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. Was initially PRODded citing: "No sources. Has been tagged for more than four years. We don't know if this info is factual or not because there is no way to check it ( WP:verifiability). Challenging and should be removed. Also not Notable." It was then redirected by a different user to " Educated Horses" but the redirect was then reverted by another user who claims: "This one actually did chart." œ ™ 17:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
There is no secondary source coverage of Ms. Cook that I can find. All of the hits are listings of books that she has written at booksellers, but there is no coverage of the author outside of the normal author's bio that gets printed on the dust jacket. Gigs ( talk) 19:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No independent sources to establish notability. Link to SATOP does not mention either Matteran or Sterling Power and google search of site finds no mention. No significant google hits of "Matteran energy cycle". Disputed prod. noq ( talk) 20:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Would it help if the name of the article was changed to Matteran Energy Corporation? It is largely about the company anyway. Biscuittin ( talk) 21:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete. There may be a whiff of notability, but even those favoring keeping the subject weren't fully convinced. A redirect could be a compromise, but there is insufficient agreement for me to close the AFD in that manner. Obviously, editors are free to continue discussing the article on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Found only trivial coverage of venues he was performing at. Only one notable role (announcer on one game show), but he only held that role for a couple months. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 21:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
*Keep None of the Above. The decision to delete a comedian smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. A television and radio broadcast is notible whether it be
a long or short career. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics
who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not
try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information?
PsychClone —Preceding
undated comment added 22:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC). Trolling struck per ANI consensus.
Favonian (
talk)
21:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM ttonyb ( talk) 22:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The article is about a web series that does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and lacks reliable, independent sources. Prod removed by new user with the incorrect comment, 'removed proposed deletion - article is sourced and referenced. Subject is minor, but if this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Ali_Zainal_Riza is allowed then this page should be too,' but without the addition of any sources. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I can't discern any real consensus one way or the other, even disallowing the comments of the blocked/spa accounts. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a non-notable company. I can't find any
reliable sources, only press releases and social media sites.
TN
X
Man
19:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
doesnt meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports) 464sfh fhfhfxt767ct ( talk) 02:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC) — 464sfh fhfhfxt767ct ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsuccessful candidate for political office (ran for the state legislature in Washington state) with no other apparent claim to notability. Certainly fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Third-party coverage limited to a smattering of articles in local papers, most of which are no more than cookie-cutter election stories (listing candidates or publishing results) and mention her only in passing. The rest of the refs provided are from her campaign website, her facebook page or simply election results from the local county auditor's website. I can't see how she's passes the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" test. Lincolnite ( talk) 22:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This person doesn't seem to be notable Unixtastic ( talk) 21:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete: Unless this person has been involved in something notable I suggest we delete this page. Isn't there a more domain specific wiki for sportsmen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixtastic ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable high school plays. PROD removed by author. GILO ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY 21:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that this content is not supported by coverage in secondary sources, and as such is excessive in-universe plot detail that is not suitable for an encyclopedia. If someone has genuine intent to transwiki it somewhere useful I will happily assist by undeleting it somewhere temporarily, but consensus is clear it does not belong in Wikipedia in anything like this form. ~ mazca talk 01:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The article is full of original research, it's written with an in-universe perspective and the text is material for a fansite, not Wikipedia. There is nothing notable here that isn't already covered in the many other Neon Genesis Evangelion articles, none of the references seem to be reliable sources and the content doesn't have real-world notability. I believe that this article is a perfect example of fancruft and therefore should be deleted. Jfgslo ( talk) 21:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This one is pretty hard...although it does have some real-world information with "gianax terms" it is unsourced, and the rest is primarially in-universe, plot related. It can't be helped. I go for Delete. Bread Ninja ( talk) 22:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
How is our opinion "fancruft"? Are you sure you even read the guideline???? 1)If we have stricter guidelines, than so be it. maybe the comics ikiproject should have stricter guiselines too. 2)You basically admitted, "notability" to you is based on the personal beliefs rather than WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTE. 3) That's not solving anything, thats basically admitting theres a problem. 4) Then it's pretty clear, there is no real reason within wikipedia standards that this should be kept. for you're second point, i'm not talking about reasoning is fancruft, i'm talkinga bout the article. Bread Ninja ( talk) 00:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply
i'm not trying to twist your words. you should just be clearer and be simpler. i'm just going to say that it's not notable to wikipedia standards. You said it is notable to those who know the subject well, thats basically saying that it's notable to those who know about it , not to wikipedia standards. admitting an article is in=universe is a BAD thing in wikipedia, because we strive for out of universe point of view. And i'm pretty sure, no one has verified the article yet. And considering the size of the article, i would say it isn't. Also violates WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:IINFO. Bread Ninja ( talk) 01:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply
![]() | This list describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily
in-universe style. Please
help rewrite it to
explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective. (
Learn how and when to remove this message) |
But you suggest to "keep" instead of "redirect". i'm saying there is no information on the glossary to keep it independent. Bread Ninja ( talk) 02:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply
so which is it? keep, merge, delete, or redirect?
(Writing here to avoid too long comment) Gwern, if there is bad faith here it is on your side. This is an AfD, we're not assessing the quality of the sourcing, but the notability, and the
general notability guideline says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article [...] "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". As for sourcing in general,
WP:RS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." If you want to contribute to WP, you have to play by its rules. Also, we're trying to assess the general notability of the topic, and the secondary sources must be about the topic itself, not just about individual elements not directly pertaining to it ("Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail"). I don't see how sourcing the pronunciation of the word "Seele" to Broderick would make an Evangelion glossary notable. This info could actually be located anywhere and is not proving the need of a glossary. Same for the Fujie source, which only quotes dialogues to retrace one event in Adam's backstory. I see nothing here advocating for a glossary of each term (creatures, organization, places, concepts) ever coined by the show. Also, video games based on the show or databooks are not independent secondary sources, since both are directly tied to the show through licensing/sponsoring contracts, and/or authorial implication.
The nomination is not wrong in any way. Identify what would be wrong according to you, and say why it would be wrong by citing precise examples. Otherwise, your claims mean nothing. If the nom' was really wrong, I guess the majority of people here would have noticed it and would not have supported it. And accusing the nominator of "lying" is a blatant
personnal attack, and this kind of behavior has nothing to do here (or anywhere else).
The Protoculture Addicts article to which you refer may appear to be a reliable source, but given the number of people who deem this kind of article non-notable, one source won't be enough, notability means significant coverage. In fact, even if we could find reliable sources, the problems of
in-universe perspective and
plot-only approach would remain.
Folken de Fanel (
talk)
09:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was Already A7'ed by another admin Jclemens-public ( talk) 23:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Unreferenced Kittybrewster ☎ 19:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Appears to have been G7'ed per request Jclemens-public ( talk) 23:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
essay, non encyclopedic Wuh Wuz Dat 18:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Article was published for a school assignment. I will find another location to publish it. Please go ahead and delete the page. Thanks. User:Dmarusiak —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC). reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This article is original research and has been tagged for no references since January, 2009. It is a POV fork of Left-right politics and the Political spectrum. TFD ( talk) 18:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted. TN X Man 17:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No sources provided and none from Google. No assertion of notability. WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 17:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to History of Leeds United A.F.C.. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Duplicates basic information from Leeds United A.F.C. and then partially expands the stats with uncited, not entirely neutral commentary. NtheP ( talk) 16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Leeds United Honours is a genuinely fact based page, set up, because I feel the Leeds United A.F.C. page does not show the full extent of Leeds United's history. In terms of the trophies Leeds United have won and the finals they have reached. I want to put across an unbiased and neutral tone, which support both sides of the argument. I try to describe each event as unbiased as I possibly can. I feel page viewers deserve to see a Leeds United page which shows honours won, events, runners up medals etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas347 ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)<! -- Thomas347 ( talk) 11:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This article does not duplicate basic information and events of Leeds United A.F.C., because Leeds United A.F.C., does not describe specific events such as The European Cup Final, Cup Winners Cup Final etc… Such as Referee Christos Michas's controversial decisions, which cost Leeds the Cup Winners Cup. Leeds United A.F.C. does not contain any of the finals Leeds have reached, as well as not stating any of the trophies Leeds have come runners up in. For example, Division 1. I describe specific events in an unbiased and neutral tone which supports both sides of the article. I believe this article is fit for purpose and should stay. -- Thomas347 ( talk) 11:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 02:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Sorry but this is a slam-dunk case of violating WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER as the title, release date, and track list for this album are not yet confirmed. The "reference" given in this article is just a blue link to a section of the band's article where the same upcoming album is discussed, and sources there only point to rumors and speculation. Wikipedia will still be here when this album is much closer to reality. -- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Article is almost entirely plot and "quotes" ( WP:TRIVIA?). Lacking any information about the book's notability and/or impact and/or critical reception, this is a delete. Strange Passerby ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism for a video game "genre"; borderline speedy-able as no sources indicating notability are given. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Well im new here and I dont know how to began but i'll try, I create the article. A agree that the genre is not notable for many games but like its mentioned in the article it was coined by the Yu Suzuki for his game, Shenmue because the series is too hard to categorize. So its a special genre for this game only. There are some websites like giantbomb.com , videogamesdaily.com/ and gamergeorge.info mentioned it and recognized it. Faithtour ( talk) 17:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It is a clear outcome in this case.
The keep !votes are almost entirely from new accounts located in the relevant local area. It is also reasonable to believe that at least some of those !votes were procured by an "email" referred to by one of them. Even so, these keep !votes universally fail to support the inclusion of the article by reference to accepted inclusion standards such as WP:N and WP:GNG. The remaining keeps (eg MichaelQSchmidt) do, but it is clear that the view that the subject has received significant coverage does not have consensus. The delete !voters have acknowledged the existence of some sources - in particular coverage of the legal action and one other article in "Eastside City Arts" - but have formed the view that the coverage is not significant. That view has a clear consensus support by reference to accepted inclusion standards. Mkativerata ( talk) 18:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Very low on reliable sources to show notability. The website shows a current issue, despite the previous notice that publication was ceasing. I'd say, unless we can find sourcing that explains exactly what the heck is going on with this paper, we shouldn't be covering it. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 15:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Is SarekOFVulcan a shill for an enemy of The Sun newspaper? Probably. Looking through 'History' for the article shows a surprising number of entries by him/her. But again THAT'S HIS RIGHT. No one should take ANYTHING in Wikipedia to be the truth since it can be changed by anyone.
oth for and against, the actions of this newspaper.
Since it's been publishing for 5 years and - with the exception of a 3 or 4 month hiatus - has been distributed throughout Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond and Woodinville (that I know of) it certainly isn't out of business or defunct. I pick it up at George's the first of every month.
So, if you keep it, here are my suggested changes:
I don't know how to sign this so it must go in as unsigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.8.22 ( talk) 23:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) — 71.164.8.22 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I read The Eastside Sun from cover to cover every issue because it is NOT like a small town paper, it picks fights with corrupt police and names worthless city employees and backs it up with evidence and research. Its more like The Shinbone Star than a fishwrapper. I especially take offense at Tony Fox who is working tirelessly to delete this publication because "Dodgy is my opinion of the suit from what I've read about it (the links here, mostly) and based on long experience with similar claims." Similar claims?? He attacks one newspaper because he's heard something about other lawsuits by other people and he has the mental capabilities to determine that they are exactly the same? Perhaps he could save us money by replacing The Supreme Court. Has he read the depositions and arguments from both sides? Does he know the three city employees? It would be amazing if he did because I live here and I don't. Anyway, I don't have an Wiki-account but my name is Marilynne Reade. BTW FischerQueen, you may feel enough superiority to we serfs to refer to us as Silly People as you did in history:
but at least we have the courtesy to make reasoned arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.8.22 ( talk) 21:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC) — 71.164.8.22 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Very heartfelt apology Susan. Calling people ignorant is SO much better.
We ARE a small newspaper by any standards - established July 2006.
We ARE controversial.
We ARE embroiled in not one but two lawsuits.
We ARE occasionally A--holes and we've made some enemies.
But in our defense we apply time-honored checks and balances to our editorials. We don't seek the ouster of a public official until their actions rise to the level of inexcusable. We don't seek the termination of a police officer until 3 separate sources swear to his corruption. We sought intermediate steps prior to pursuing the lawsuit. We met with the superior of the guilty parties only to have her lie to our faces. When no action was taken we took action.
Wikipedia is a first-time-ever experiment where anyone can edit anything. It is a resource that every newspaperman on the planet probably uses at one time or another, myself included. I've watched our page over the years and even contributed to it - something I learned later was a no-no. Just today I researched House M.D., A cooking show with Gen Anderson and The HMS Britannic, the sister ship of the Titanic (only to learn we were misspelling it as Britanic). Needless to say, Wikipedia is an invaluable resource.
But this bickering has to stop. Yes, I too find it interesting that a few editors find us so terribly interesting and in need of deletion, but - like being in a crowded bar at closing time - you can make book on the fact we will always attract that one 'special' person who will go on to make our life a living hell...
I've reviewed the edits of all the 'Delete' editors mentioned and we are not the only article they've ever worked on, edited, nominated for deletion or heavily censored. There is no reason to believe there is any vendetta going on, just watching, watching, watching. Day and night, 24/7... watching us. Wow, suddenly I got this chill. Anybody got a Xanax?
In closing, we've been proud to be listed in the pages of Wikipedia and, if we are to be deleted, then so be it. Feel free to contact me to verify this message's authenticity. Our phone number and email can be found on page two of this month's issue available online (www.eastsidesun.com) and at newsstands in Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Woodinville, Issaquah (look it up, it's a real city) and Renton.
But knock off the bickering or, I swear to god, I'm coming back there with a switch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.1 ( talk) 23:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
To regular contributors, I am VERY sorry for doing this and will face the music for being disruptive if necessary, but it seems that some on this thread will not take the time to click on a simple link offered over and over again. PLEASE NOTE: At the very core of the issue, THIS is what we are talking about...base your arguments for keep on the following:
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article. with apologies The Eskimo ( talk) 03:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual. He had a two year minor league career. Muboshgu ( talk) 15:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Musical group of questionable notability, possible COI/self-promotion. While there are claims of notability, the references are unclear - the ESPN link does not mention the band, and the search function at that link shows zero returns. The other references are either passing mentions, primary sources, or an interview with one bandmember, not the group. TheRealFennShysa ( talk) 14:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Timbecile ( talk) 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was already speedily deleted by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Autobiography without established notability. JNW ( talk) 14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 02:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable character outside of game. Article is mostly primary source re-iteration of the BioShock 2 plot. MASEM ( t) 14:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Was once a contested PROD, but I still cannot see any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, which are needed to pass WP:CORP. This is a failed airline project, which was founded and shut down again in November/December 2005. so the encyclopedic impact should be very low. Only sources to be found are either trivial directory entries proving that the company existed, or some news snippets describing the initial intentions. That's just not significant. Per aspera ad Astra ( talk) 09:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Fork of Hinduism, difficult to make POV almost a G10 Ϣere SpielChequers 12:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 02:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Rajput word is used no where in sanskrit literature.They are later addition to indian society.Some of them descendant from Huna, Gurjara hordes whereas some from aboriginals.Rajput and many other castes clains descendant from God rama that doesn't means God Rama was rajput or else.
For more info visit (famous historian V. A. smith) : http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8XXGhAL1WKcC&pg=PA413&dq R Mkrestin ( talk) 10:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
If someone has an objection to word Rajput : the Title name can be changed to List of Avatars(God) born in Kshatriya or List of Avatars(God) born in Royal Families. As far a I understand the list is comprehensive and should not be deleted. As far as I understand the reason for asking deletion, is objection to word Rajput and not the content of the article by original proposer. Although, in India all Rajput claim their descant from Kshatriya. R P Jethwa ( talk) 15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi!! Matthew, what I was trying to clarify was that Mkrestin has put deletion notice citing objection to use of word Rajput. He has been editing all articles, removing the word Rajput wherever it is used by anyone and deleting or editing without any logic. See : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raghav Rajkul.png, Bachal Deletion request, removed the image of Lord Rama from articles like Bachal, Jayas. Are there any administrator sitting up there taking notice of this vandalism going on in wikipedia. Further, all I was trying to say was that whoever created the page may not have the idea, about wikipedia guidelines. But since list is exhaustive and can be useful for someone researching on India & Hinduism related topic, to save it, maybe, it can also be made or shifted to a [[Category : List of Avatars(God) born in Royal Families]] of Category : List of Indian Gods born in Raoyal families, if not as a page so that article remains as a category. However, it is up to community to decide the fate of article. I just wanted to give my opinion. Ever since I have became a wikipedian, I have come to understand that, there are many persons, who want to prove their point of view and Wikipedia is becoming like internet game, where anyone can come play, prove their point, fight and go away. Sometimes, there are gang of persons involved, one proposes deletion, another seconds it. Sometimes, same person uses several accounts to make it's voice heard. As far as Rajput & Kshatriya theory is concerned : I believe all Rajput are Kshatriya, if not vice-versa. And if someone, wants to say Rajput are not Kshatriyas, then he must give genuine links to such an original idea. Maybe he could re-write history of Indian sub-continent. R P Jethwa ( talk) 18:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Bachal article was a lot copy paste from Sisodia article that's why i put that notice.I request to the fellow editors to check the list mentioned at the end of this article as they seems to have no link with Bachal clan except last inline links. Mkrestin ( talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Hi!!. Going one step further I have renamed the page List of Hindu avatars born as Kshatriyas, as Rajput would be inappropriate looking at historical background. As far as your question Hindu is too specific, looking at the list it contains lot of name of Jain religion. Let the community take debate further. R P Jethwa ( talk) 02:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Further, in many of the edits user Mkrestin has given edit summary as use of word Rajput & Kshatriya together is not proper. They are different.... And removed word Rajput. IF that is so he should be bold enough to remove the first line The Rajput are one of the major social groups of India, historically associated with the Kshatriya martial caste in Hindu society. from Rajput page. and let us see the floodgates open. R P Jethwa ( talk) 02:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I do not have any personal bias against you or any one. If you thought article was bad in taste than Deletion policy cites alternative to deletion by editing, or giving proper reason for deletion and not reasons like Rama was not a Rajput. Becasue, the page contains rathar more names of Jain Tirthankar rathar than Hindu Gods. I have my-self removed the image of Lord Rama from this page as I thought it to be of no use here. All I was trying to say was that deletion is easy but if page can be improved and saved it is rather good. Same is the case with File:Raghav_Rajkul.png, which has no criteria for deletion. If u r saying Ram was not Rajput, that is okay but what about many clans claiming descant from Raghukul. R P Jethwa ( talk) 09:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The subject fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a competitive, first-team match for a professional football club, nor has he made a senior international appearance for a FIFA-recognised nation. Furthermore, there are no significant third-party sources that cover this individual. – Pee Jay 10:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
An article I prodded a few months ago, I can't remember why but I think the editor of the original page had a COI, and this article seems identical. Businessman who unfortunately fails WP:GNG and can't claim notability through any of the WP:BIO guidelines. Bigger digger ( talk) 10:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Possible sources have been quite exhaustively considered, and the consensus is to delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability at the moment. I will withdraw this nomination if sources can be found to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (music). Cunard ( talk) 09:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Lack of reliable sources. Three of the references are based on the ideas of one man, Norm Hansen, who apparently presented ideas at an American Physical Society meeting here and here. The other reference is somewhat outdated; 15 years ago, there was still some doubt about the origin of gamma-ray bursts. At this point, that is not the case, and antimatter comets are not the progenitors. There are no peer reviewed articles that I could find backing any of the claims made in this article. James McBride ( talk) 09:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The player did not made his debut in national level, and seems not yet made his debut in state league level either (state level "professional" or not is disputed). Matthew_hk t c 09:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb ( talk) 08:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There's a strong suggestion that this is a vanity autobiography, and the distinct concerns over the validity and verifiability of the claimed BBC and CNN coverage cast a further negative light. Should actual, verifiable, significant coverage that can be demonstrably sourced to first-hand copies of reliable sources become available, then the article can be recreated - but until that time the consensus here holds that it is not appropriate for us to continue to host this poorly-sourced and poorly-written autobiography. ~ mazca talk 00:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. E. Fokker ( talk) 01:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Zap this, with no prejudice against a future; properly, reliably, and independently sourced; and not as poorly written; article should one arise in the future. This is not in any way how biographies should be written, especially when writing about onesself. Uncle G ( talk) 01:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Despite two relists there does not seem to be a strong consensus over whether the notability guideline for professors is fulfilled, or indeed even if it's the best way of determining the notability of the subject. Referencing of the article has nonetheless improved over the course of the debate, but it does not seem to have attracted a strong consensus either way. ~ mazca talk 01:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail WP:PROF. As far as I can tell, he doesn't fit criteria 2-9, and he probably doesn't meet criterion 1, either. Also, it's worth noting that this was created by User:Lidiavianu, whose name is mentioned in the article and who added this spam-like link to another article. Also editing the article was User:Bezeauainfuriata, creator of—you guessed it— Lidia Vianu. So there's probably a conflict of interest/sockpuppetry going on as well. Biruitorul Talk 20:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as G12 by Diannaa. NAC on the AfD discussion. Regent of the Seatopians ( talk) 00:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. According to Gnews, this show was only announced yesterday; thus, it's too soon to have an article about it. I actually feel this article should be incubated, not deleted, but since WP:AI doesn't list a way to execute incubation without first going through a deletion process, I brought it here (and why the article was originally named Homelanda is beyond me). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
In fact, this article is not about an airline, but about a proposed measure to cope with the financial crisis in Russia, thus being highly speculative ( WP:CRYSTAL). The plan was scrapped, and as its impact was very low, the whole thing does not seem to be notable for a stand-alone article. Per aspera ad Astra ( talk) 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The original nomination was very clearly valid and the early participation would have supported a delete outcome - but a wholesale rewrite of the article late in the AfD process by Silver seren ( talk · contribs) appears to have done a good job of salvaging a sourced encyclopedic article here. I can certainly see potential concerns that this may still duplicate content at Green building, but any merge discussions in that vein don't need an AfD. ~ mazca talk 01:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Access Denied – talk to me 05:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable "philosophy". Article states "no other references can be provided seeing as how this philosophy is being made public through the use of wikipedia." Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 04:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The nominator has given a thoughtful rationale for deletion. The rationale has received significant support, and defence, from other editors. There are of course a number of keep arguments made. But the bases for a number of them have been refuted: a couple of delete !voters have gone to significant and successful lengths to do so on a policy basis. For example "no policy/guideline basis for setting the GNG aside" is a rationale refuted as having been made without reference to WP:NOTNEWS. Not all the keeps are weak - a number of them directly deal with NOTNEWS - but a number of them have been given less weight due to the refuted "news coverage=inclusion" view.
The numbers here seem to be 7-5 to delete (with one keep being explicitly "weak"), but it is the balancing of the arguments that has tipped it firmly into "consensus to delete" territory.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a difficult decision, but I think the right one. There will be some who feel that the news item went viral and is notable, and that deletion must be due to censorship or prudery. It isn't. It's because this really is, in this day and age, "just routine news". Emails are routinely forwarded whose creators didn't want them to be, they routinely get mass circulated, a huge number of things "go viral", and many people put details of sexual performance of past partners online or send them to close friends - for fun, to embarrass exes, or for other reasons.
By way of comparison, many news items of significance (murders, speeches, suicides, tragedies and "funny page" news) have long been considered "routine" even though they routinely gain widespread coverage in reliable sources. We don't document everything. This seems to be of the same kind - if we can agree that most suicides, murders or other horrific incidents are "just routine" and salaciousness isn't a factor, then "embarrassing emails sent out by friends that get commented on for being widely circulated lulz" probably are of the same kind too. Perhaps only the most notable or those with some specific reason, should be given their own articles.
In brief, I'm not sure at all that this meets the spirit of WP:NOT. The question is whether "person writes embarrassing email (content irrelevant) that a friend forwards and goes viral" is sufficient for WP:NOT#NEWS.
In this case there are a lot of cites, it has gained mentions in reliable sources and the letter of WP:GNG. But where as a community do we set the hurdle of WP:NOT#NEWS to ensure not every last widely circulated internet mistake becomes a Wikipedia article? Internet circulated emails, memes and other viral matters - even those commented in reliable sources - are as routine as political speeches, suicides, murders, and funny page or human interest news snippets. This one seems to be "just another person who sent an email about their sex partners that got forwarded by a friend to the world". They're all but routine. Hence after some deep thought, nominated at AFD. FT2 ( Talk | email) 19:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
It's a consideration (and the good faith is not in question). But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" ( WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?
It just doesn't seem so, or at least there's not currently evidence of the possibility ( WP:CRYSTAL). Some events do have significant impact on a controversy and are seen or will be seen as significant points of enduring notice in the debate. But right now we don't have good evidence this is (or is seen as, or will be) anything more than "another privacy breach controversy of similar kind as many many others have been or will be". FT2 ( Talk | email) 06:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was userfied, then both copies deleted (?) by JzG. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 01:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm borderline on this one. The article asserts notability (recipients of awards, etc) but it's a close thing. Either way, if it's kept, it needs to be sourced and cleaned up... rahaeli ( talk) 02:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The article remains in a fairly poor state, but sources have been found and at worst it remains a small and harmless stub. There seems to be no particular consensus to delete it at this time. ~ mazca talk 01:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The only source I can find for this is a brief mention here, so I don't think this is notable enough for its own article. It says it's been copied to Wiktionary, but I can't find it anywhere, so a transfer to there might be in order. — focus 02:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. The original author of this and other such articles has not been around for a while, and Lord knows where he got his information! It could also be merged with Entremés, but that article, too, suffers from lack of sources. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 06:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Waffle. I have no objection to this being rescued, now that Cnilep has moved in that direction. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 18:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Last Comic Standing 6. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Article was a redirect and recently changed back to an article by an SPA. The article still lacks enough sources to justify notability. I feel that it should be changed back to a redirect. Dismas| (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
*Keep The decision to delete a comedian smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. A television and radio broadcast is notible whether it be
a long or short career. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics
who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not
try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information?
PsychClone —Preceding
undated comment added 22:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC). Trolling struck per ANI consensus.
Favonian (
talk)
21:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
To summarize: we have a BLP for which I can find two unreliable sources, both of them indicating the subject's non-notability. Delete. Drmies ( talk) 19:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Not really notable in terms of coverage, lacks third party coverage and no evidence to suggest this article will grow in time. Nowhere to redirect to either. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. If the scrubbing and salvaging suggested by Kimchi.sg doesn't work, we may need to discuss this again. Sandstein 12:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
May nt be notable according to WP:ORG Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 03:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Tournament in a company that was deleted for not meeting WP:CORP (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWA East Coast). Nikki♥ 311 05:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. A description of a type of bodyboarding that does not seem to have sufficient notability for its own article. I have worked to clean up the article a bit but the more I work with it the less I feel that the subject is notable. I removed a couple of spammy references; those that are left are 1) a description of dropknee from a list of bodyboarding maneuvres (some of the text in the article is still a copyvio from that site, though I've removed some of it); 2) a link to fluidzone.com which is not immediately apparent as a reliable source (look at their About us page) - this link is claimed to reference information about the Dropknee World champion, but the information on the site doesn't mention world championships at all; and 3) the site of the competition "Dropknee sessions", used as a reference for that competition, so not a secondary source at all.
I don't doubt that the style exists but as yet there does not seem to be independent notability for it. I would suggest merging the salvageable information from this article into bodyboarding (where it is already mentioned), providing it can be referenced properly.
Note also that Matt Lackey is up for another AfD, and I'm considering also nominating Paul Roach. Those two articles about Dropknee riders have been around for several years without getting any proper sources outside the same websites used to reference Dropknee, which also makes me doubt the notability of the sport itself. bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Dropknee is certainly a sport. The sport is still in its developing stage and hence there are not many reliable sources for the sport. However there is a new website to be released in about a month devoted completely to dropknee and hopefully will have an array of references for the page. Dropknee is considered as a subdivision of bodyboarding however it is actually quite different which is why i originally created the page. The style of riding/method of riding in dropknee differs greatly to bodyboarding and hence a seperate page was neccesary. I recommended that you reconsider your decision to delete the page. I will continue to work on finding reliable sources to further demonstrate the importance/existence/notability of dropknee. I guarantee you that it is a notable sport and is rapidly growing. In regards to the page on Matt Lackey and Paul Roach they do certainly deserve pages. They are both world famous dropkneers. I also ask you to reconsider your decision you have made on those pages. I will continue to find reliable sources for these two pages also. Thankyou, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlync81 ( talk • contribs) 12:20, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
Here are some links to reliable newspapers/magazines/websites which qualify dropknee as a notable source:
If i was to incorporate these links (and others) into the article and improve the article in general would it be accepted as a notable source? I will also do the same for the articles on Matt Lackey and Paul Roach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlync81 ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No one opined in favor of keeping the article in mainspace. I'm deleting this, but I'm treating it as a WP:PROD; i.e. I'll restore on request. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
This article about a bodyboarder does not provide a credible claim that the person meets WP:ATHLETE. "Dropknee" is a particular bodyboarding style; there are no reliable sources to verify the importance of the style, nor are there sources to verify that this person is in fact "one of the best dropknee bodyboarders in the world". The article has been around since 2005 and was unreferenced until July this year. The single ref added then is to a website that does not meet WP:RS, and there are no other secondary sources that I can find. bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Family Feud#Home versions covers this topic in more than enough detail. This article is simply the rule book from the home game with a few details about later versions, information which is already included in the parent article. Tagged as unreferenced and orphan since December 2009, and this article lacks notability to be a stand-alone topic. Sottolacqua ( talk) 14:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Notability is not temporary, so I evaluated the discussion in that light. The proposed redirect was fairly well rebuted as well, so I accorded that argument less weight. What was left was a rough consensus to keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
There is only one such store. And it's scheduled to close. This chain was never very large in the first place. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ged UK 09:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. Was initially PRODded citing: "No sources. Has been tagged for more than four years. We don't know if this info is factual or not because there is no way to check it ( WP:verifiability). Challenging and should be removed. Also not Notable." It was then redirected by a different user to " Educated Horses" but the redirect was then reverted by another user who claims: "This one actually did chart." œ ™ 17:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
There is no secondary source coverage of Ms. Cook that I can find. All of the hits are listings of books that she has written at booksellers, but there is no coverage of the author outside of the normal author's bio that gets printed on the dust jacket. Gigs ( talk) 19:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
No independent sources to establish notability. Link to SATOP does not mention either Matteran or Sterling Power and google search of site finds no mention. No significant google hits of "Matteran energy cycle". Disputed prod. noq ( talk) 20:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Would it help if the name of the article was changed to Matteran Energy Corporation? It is largely about the company anyway. Biscuittin ( talk) 21:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete. There may be a whiff of notability, but even those favoring keeping the subject weren't fully convinced. A redirect could be a compromise, but there is insufficient agreement for me to close the AFD in that manner. Obviously, editors are free to continue discussing the article on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Found only trivial coverage of venues he was performing at. Only one notable role (announcer on one game show), but he only held that role for a couple months. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 21:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
*Keep None of the Above. The decision to delete a comedian smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. A television and radio broadcast is notible whether it be
a long or short career. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics
who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not
try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information?
PsychClone —Preceding
undated comment added 22:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC). Trolling struck per ANI consensus.
Favonian (
talk)
21:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM ttonyb ( talk) 22:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The article is about a web series that does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and lacks reliable, independent sources. Prod removed by new user with the incorrect comment, 'removed proposed deletion - article is sourced and referenced. Subject is minor, but if this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Ali_Zainal_Riza is allowed then this page should be too,' but without the addition of any sources. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I can't discern any real consensus one way or the other, even disallowing the comments of the blocked/spa accounts. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Advertising for a non-notable company. I can't find any
reliable sources, only press releases and social media sites.
TN
X
Man
19:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
reply