The result was keep. The band has garnered some coverage and recognition from third-party, reliable published sources and professional blogs such as Billboard magazine, the official Doctor Who magazine, io9, Digital Spy and Wired... Also, the fact that they have had 2 albums released under a well-known indie label, one of which was featured on the Heatseekers chart, makes the band just about qualified under WP:BAND. Improvement on article is still much needed. @pple complain 23:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The claims for notability of this subject appear to stem solely from their recent #23 listing on the Top Heatseekers chart. However, I'm not sure that this alone is enough to justify their notability: the Heatseekers chart isn't listed at WP:GOODCHARTS, and I can't find any reliable source that archives it, meaning that it is impossible to verify this claim. The ref given in the article doesn't mention Chameleon Circuit at all, and all other refs are from self-published sources, e.g. YouTube, Dailybooth, and websites from members of the band. The few reliable sources that I could find that mention the band name (such as The Telegraph, Digital Journal, Gazette & Herald and Newsround) seem to be referring to an actual chameleon circuit (i.e. the component in Doctor Who) and don't seem to be about this group. A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 23:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a hoax. Peridon ( talk) 23:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable newly created empire that appears to be in the US Breawycker ( talk to me!) 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Subject doesn't meet any criteria of WP:GNG. There are no reliable, secondary sources provided to prove notability. @pple complain 22:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
No real claim to notability. Eliminated reality show contestant, albums not on important label, no evidence of multiple significant roles in notable productions, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. PROD contested by article creator. MikeWazowski ( talk) 22:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 23:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, withdrawal of nomination. — C.Fred ( talk) 23:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The article starter removed the prod. A non-notable company. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Linkspammy list. Many redlinked or nonlinked entries. No sources. Dubious notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 21:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. @pple complain 22:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
No individual notability. Notable for being married to someone. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:PROF does not apply. — Finemann ( talk) 21:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Bejinhan talks 03:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm renominating this article, because it is non enyclopedic and it violates WP:NOT, which steadily says that WP is not a restaurant or touristic guide, it is obviously an ads, it features telephone numbers, address, what is served in its menu, this article is non notable and does not feature sources that inforce this fact. Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 20:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. @pple complain 20:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
This article was deleted when its name was Chicken and Rice, but it was recreated and split into two different articles, this one and 53rd and 6th which is also nominated for deletion. The recreated article features similar problems from the original one, which include poor sourcing, notability, the sources provided cannot sustain notability, full of POV, with informal text sounding like a recipe, and it violates WP:NOT Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 20:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I can only find a bunch of unreliable sources, local news, and press releases. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill ( talk) 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Cerejota ( talk) 07:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears utterly non-notable and probably a vanity article (based on the name of the original creator). Was tagged for notability which was removed without explanation. - Lilac Soul ( Talk • Contribs) 19:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
*Delete (unless...) We cannot rely solely on the h-Index (
here's why). The teaching award he has received is certainly not a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". In my interpretation, the subject fails
WP:PROF (and there is a lack of evidence of additional notability) unless it can be demonstrated that the Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra qualifies as a "major well-established academic journal".
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak
13:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability for this particular product. Kelly hi! 19:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, nominator has withdrawn nomination/no longer advocates deletion, and no other participants advocate deletion. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet any notability standards under WP:ORG, other than being inspected and having a small award with limited coverage based on a google search. Kind of borderline to me, but I am on the delete side for this one. Sasquatch t| c 18:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Railpage Australia#Railcam_Project, where the information already exists. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't find any independent reliable sources for this Railcam Project. Fails basic notability guidelines WP:Note JimmyGiggle ( talk) 14:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply
What is an independent source? I have seen the cameras myself and I can view the output. What else would be required? Isn't the proof available on the photostream which is listed in the article? I can also find the camera output live and on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozrailfans ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Fixed nomination header. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 07:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't find anything from a 3rd party to point to the notability of the project. It is associated with the Railpage Australia website and Melbourne Wireless, but that isn't enough to meet WP:N. Possibly merge to either of these wiki entries? Wongm ( talk) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Might not hurt to renominate this in a few months, to see if we can get a fuller discussion, but there's just no consensus here to do anything. Courcelles 17:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
No proof of notability PtQa ( talk) 10:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. joe decker talk to me 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Not seeing enough third party reliable sources establishing notability; promotes the subject more than anything else. Likely conflict of issue given creator's edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Rewrite- I am one of the contributors. Thank you for this specific feedback. My plan is to carefully review other bios that are already up and do not have issues and to try to utilize thier methodology. I have found the citation / reference sections difficult to input and will try to sort that out. Can you tell me what GS and NPOV mean? Dr. Wolfe's work is cited by many other authors in peer-reviewed journals. There is a citation service which could be referenced- i don't know if that is acceptable. For eg, the reference to children of battered women syndrome is regularly referenced and attributed to he and his colleague. Is that the kind of reference you require? My thought had been that, since his work is in peer-reviewed journals, that in and of itself was "external"- anyone who has had to go through the peer acceptance process will appreciate what i am saying. Again, thank you for the helpful comments. Bll79llb ( talk) 12:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)bll79llb — Bll79llb ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep as significant contributor to his field - I edited out some of the "spam and puffery" — Pjaffe2 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was no consensus. causa sui ( talk) 23:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This article about a future product is based entirely on press releases and web sites from the manufacturer. There is no sustained independent coverage in serious journalistic or scholarly sources. There are passing mentions in a couple blogs, which is insufficient. See also WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of announcements of future products. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 15:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 15:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia policy not to have footballer articles until they have made their first team debuts, Hemmings has yet to do so. Ifore2010 ( talk) 20:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Warburton1368 ( talk) 21:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Didn't realise it. Ifore2010 ( talk) 21:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that the standards for musicians are not met. Courcelles 01:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable songwriter with no adequate sourcing from reliable secondary sources to meet notability guidelines. Warfieldian ( talk) 17:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence that the player has competed at a notable level. Argyle 4 Life talk 17:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Gold farming. causa sui ( talk) 23:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
This was kept because of SNOW arguments last time. I don't think anyone actually looked at the article, which hasn't really changed much. The article appears to be a heavily-biased editorial about the lack of virtues of trading money for in-game items/accounts/money for MMO(RPG)s. There are no sources that really use a term "game sweatshop". Furthermore, this appears to be basically a statement on Runescape's decision to deal with this dated from 2007. Nothing much has changed since then.
I would ask that moderators not close this on SNOW arguments given that there are serious issues with the article shown above that have not been addresses, including whether the term "game sweatshop" is even a relevant term. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as an empty article that is the product of an accident. The article's creator, who is in fact the author and sole editor of it:Joseph McDivitt, had already once accidentally submitted an Italian language article to the English Wikipedia. This is just a continuation of the same error three minutes later. Uncle G ( talk) 00:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Blank page — dargereldren T C G E R 15:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. This is a non-notable project - fails WP:GNG. Only 1 third party source which is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Also crystal balling as it hasn't actually done anything yet. ukexpat ( talk) 15:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:PROF not satisfied. Google Scholar and Google News does not give anything of significant importance. The references from The Times of India and Express India does not have any significant coverage about the subject (which makes his notability as a science popularizer highly questionable). Most other references are announcements about the talks given by the subject. Although he has published quite a few books, most are in the regional Indian language Marathi and I don't believe any of them are widely used or read. Further the publisher of his books, Rajhansa Prakashan is not a notable third-party publisher. It is highly possible that it is a firm owned by the subject. — Finemann ( talk) 14:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 18:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to Eric Ferrara. Has a few links but they seem to be trivial coverage or mentions pushing his books. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 ( talk) 14:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted under AfD, but may be different. PRODed with the reason "Long forgotten and unsourced BLP, not independently notable sufficient to support article." The-Pope ( talk) 14:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability - internet search returned nothing. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per consensus. A clear case of WP:NEO that should have been speedy deleted. @pple complain 20:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Rambling article presenting an utter neologism. Tempting to tag it for speedy deletion: A10 fork of fibromyalgia. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 12:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
COMMENT - Given this edit by the article's author - a housekeeping edit on the user page of PharmaMBA ( talk · contribs), can I suggest that PharmaMBA's comments are disregarded by the closing admin? If you look at the timings - PharmaMBA's account was created just a few hours after the article was originally PROD'ed and his first action was to remove the PROD notice. Then today the creating editor pops up and does some edits to PharmaMBA's user page. I can take it to WP:SPI if needed, but this is a minor-league attempt at socking it is so transparent that nobody will be fooled by it. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 14:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 18:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:PROF does not apply. The article was created by a doctoral student of Prof.Jagannathan User:Sameenahmedkhan. None of Prof.Jagannathan's publications used as references in the article has over 20 citations. The claim that Prof.Jagannathan made groundbreaking contribution to the fields mentioned in the article is highly disputed. He has not held any distinguished position or received any major awards according to his cv. — Finemann ( talk) 11:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:NTENNIS - there is no record of his play at ATP.com; claims of his tennis notability, all unsourced, are apparent fabrications Mayumashu ( talk) 07:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. Courcelles 17:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
whilst some of these Republic of Texas bilaterals are notable, I don't see this pairing between notable. neither state had embassies, and all this was a 6 year period of recognition which could easily be covered in Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. trade was limited to 1 item. LibStar ( talk) 07:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Apart from appearing on one chart, this song is no more notable than any album track, and fails WP:SONGS. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and much of the article is derived from the comments of critics in album reviews. The singer has not promoted the song in any way, and the only background info given is the song credits and a short quote. Can I suggest that this article be incubated for now? — Andrew s talk 07:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was no consensus because 6 editors wanted to keep and 7 wanted to delete it.
Okay that's not really why, but those are the rough totals, i.e. a split between participants, and too few participants for such an incredibly long discussion. There were a number of valid points made by editors on both sides with respect to notability.
I think there's a reason this AfD sat around for several days without being closed, aside from it being really long, namely that there's no good way to "read" it given the nature of the discussion. One editor made 61 edits to this page and contributed a great deal of verbiage, while his main interlocutor contributed 25 and also said a bunch of stuff. This is not to mention the exchanges on Talk:Leonard R. Brand which are related to the discussion here (and which I read a lot of but most certainly did not read in total because, uhh, I just couldn't). That's all well and good and I don't doubt the good intentions of folks involved in the discussion, but for as long as this fiksybusiness is, there are few real participants, and that's a major problem given the large amount of side chatter and the lack of agreement as to the outcome.
So I see this as "no consensus" not so much because of the !vote totals or even the arguments--though that's part of it--but because this AfD just didn't unfold in a way that is conducive to coming to any sort of Wiki-style consensus. For now we default to keep due to the lack of consensus, but I think the following should really, really, really happen going forward:
Basically this is a "no consensus, let's try again later" close. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Minor creationist and Seventh Day Adventist-affiliated academic. Very little third party coverage, and what there is is almost solely on the subject of his (now long-discredited) Coconino Sandstone claims -- so this would appear to be WP:BLP1E and if considered worth keeping, could be merged into Flood geology. Any pretensions to WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR would appear to rest solely on (narrow and as yet unsubstantiated) claims of influence within SDA academia. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Note Hrafn is a rabid anti-creationist and anti-christian whose agenda is to eliminate anything that even hints at a NPOV on creationism and Christianity. He twists otherwise good WP policy to force his agenda and threaten his opposers. He is a bully.
75.244.91.121 (
talk)
00:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)—
75.244.91.121 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
Delete - Having read the article, there is nothing that establishes Brand's notability. His field is not unique, nor is his philosophy. For such a "notable" person, his biography is paltry, and there should be much more discussion of his work if that avenue was notable. MSJapan ( talk) 18:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Here is what the article looked like when it was first nominated for deletion on August 4, 2011.
Of course, here is what it looks like, today: Leonard R. Brand
Some informal statistics:
These are just the basics.
Some reflection on the data:
Disclosure: I have also placed this info on a section in the Leonard R. Brand article's talk page.
End of Comparison.
DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 21:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC) reply
In other words, in 5 days you have done ABSLUTELY NOTHING to establish the notablity of the subject of the article. NOTHING AT ALL. There are still exactly ZERO reliable independent sources that establish notablity, and that is the ONLY number that counts here on AfD. The only notable things you did manage to do was make a complete mess of this AfD page and shoot yourself in the foot with your forum shopping. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 21:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Notice the need for judgment, thus consensus"
These are very subjective standards. It is easy to understand why people dispute what is notable. What I believe is worthy of notice, significant, interesting, unusual enough to deserve attention will be different than what someone else's believes. The idea that this notability policy is cut and dried is misguided. So, this article is at the mercy of editor consensus, just like every other article in dispute. This consensus method is the best of all methods, IMO. But, it is a rough and tumble world. I like the experience and wisdom that you and others bring to the discussion. I like Wikipedia's dependance on administrator oversight because administrators themselves must go through a decision making process to become administrators. In any society, this allows the effective and careful editors to rise in the community. Cheers DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 06:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Hi Hunter_Kahn: I will work on a comprehensive answer to your question over the next little while. But, to help you see where I am so far, I will post this and then develop it further. I have listed each of your questions and have put the source author next to the question. All of these authors are cited in the article except Toumey. His book is my most recent interest. As an anthropologist, Toumey interviewed the GRI staff and discussed the GRI scientists' views as a united, coherent group. This includes Brand.
If you have time, read Toumey's section on GRI. Since GRI is treated as a coherent group of scientists and since he quotes Brand as one of the GRI scientists, the GRI section helps to explain Brand's views. Toumey quotes Brand on two points, i.e. the need for civility and the need to not advocate junk science. Toumey explains GRI's relationship to other creationist organizations. He describes GRI's critical approach to the other Creationist groups. Yet, at the end of the section, on page 141, he describes the positive relationship between GRI and the other Creationist groups. Toumey also describes the Adventist idea of holistic truth. He points out that Adventists believe there are various sources of truth, not just the Bible. He says this sets Adventists (like Brand) apart from other Creationists. Toumey also describes the dual nature of Adventism. Within the Church, they hold strongly to Biblical YEC Creationist views, while outside the church they defend the need for doing good science and criticize their fellow creationist for advocating unscientific positions. This explains Brand's position. Brand is a cautious supporter of YEC creationism and a staunch supporter of the scientific method even to the extent that if science cannot verify an element of creationist thought, first admit it, then do more scientific inquiry. This combination makes Adventism and Brand in particular unique in the realm of Creationism.
Here is the online information for the book:
Toumey, Christopher P. (1994). God's own scientists: creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 289. ISBN 0-8135-2043-6.
DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 06:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment I have decided that I have expended enough energy on trying to save the Brand article. If the decision is to keep it, I will enjoy working on it some more. It is just too hard to fuss with another editor to this extent. IMO, Dr. Brand is a notable figure in America, unassuming but a very interesting person who's story is worthy of notice. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 09:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment Even after a week of heavy editing, the article contains NO SOURCES that establish the notability of the subject in accordance with WP policy. I wish to confirm my vote for Delete having taken all the recent edits into account, as well as all of the discussion on this page, the article talk page, and the user pages of the editors involved. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 10:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment: Compare Marcus Ross article with Leonard R. Brand
Apology for Over-editing: I have just finished a discussion with a mentor regarding over-editing on an AfD article. As I think about the counsel, I realize I have been doing that here. My apologies. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 01:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability TonyStarks ( talk) 05:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Blue Oyster Cult. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
It's about the logo of Blue Oyster Cult, which logo has a history. The logo does not seem notable enough to need an article, so I propose a merge. -- Σ talk contribs 03:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't find any reliable sources to show notability. -- Σ talk contribs 02:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable comp per WP:MUSIC, without even an assertion that this sampler is special. Google shows nothing exciting. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king (edits) 01:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king (edits) 01:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king (edits) 01:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No prejudice for an early renomination if the article continues to fail GNG post this current AfD Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTE. Dritok appears only in In the Land of Invented Languages, and a blog post on a newspaper's web site . No mention elsewhere, and both sources are rather thin. In In the Land it is mentioned in a single paragraph on page 288-289 as part of a larger discussion about the Language Creation Conference, and that paragraph is as much about the audience as the language itself. The blog post is about an exhibit of well-known conlangs like Esperanto and Klingon that the language's creator, Don Boozer, set up at the library he works at. The third citation, the podcast, is not an independent source since Don Boozer is "secretary and librarian" of that site. Hermione is a dude ( talk) 21:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep: The WP:GNG speaks of "non-trivial" coverage. The guideline leaves it perhaps deliberately ambiguous as to how trivial is trivial, but enough coverage to write an article of this length is clearly non-trivial. All the article is from secondary sources, and it still stands at more than two screens' worth of length, not counting the AfD notice at the top. (Two of the sources are independent, too, and one is secondary but non-independent. Secondariness is distinct from independence, as independence includes intellectual independence, and as HiaD pointed out, Don Boozer is secretary and librarian of the podcast's site.)
The keyword in the GNG here is "subject". "Subject" means what something is about. In this case, the blog article is as much about Dritok and Mr. Boozer's development of it as about the Elvish, Esperanto and Beyond exhibit, perhaps even more so. Some people, oversimplifying the policy at WP:RS, say blogs are not reliable sources, but this is a blog associated with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, so this source is reliable.
HiaD has argued that the coverage in Ms. Okrent's book is as much about the audience' reaction as the language itself. But coverage of reaction is a Wikipedic part of describing something. Wikipedia articles should strive to include information that covers public reaction, reception, influence on the world and relevance to other things in addition to the obvious in-universe topical coverage. Guideline & Policy Wonk ( talk) 23:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
-- Sai ¿? ✍ 16:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at
which resulted in deletions. It plays at second teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king (edits) 11:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 14:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:Notability, no? Most notable thing about him seems to be his having been the subject of a movie, so his notability seems to hinge on the prominence of this movie. (The article, at least, needs to be rewritten to say in the intro why this person is notable.) Mayumashu ( talk) 12:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet NHOCKEY. Coudnt find coverage on player from websites and has not won an award in his junior league. USA1168 ( talk) 02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
A Christian rapper who released two albums in the early 90s. Reference in article and most of the references I could find were to the site Christian Music Archive. The Archive is a site where anybody can edit articles. Found two newspaper articles to her local Dallas paper about her and two other local rappers. Papers were behind a pay wall. HUGE NOTE: The article has her wrong name. She goes by MC GeGee or MC Ge Gee. There is another rapper who goes by MC Gee Gee and lets just say he loves "poop" and has some images that will haunt me forever. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Kylie Minogue singles discography. Courcelles 00:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I am suggesting a redirect & merge to Kylie Minogue singles discography (not all of the info, just the info that is not OR). After years of battling with this article inside of WP:Kylie, there does not seem to be any reliable source proving this song was on the Taiwan Singles Chart (no reliable source for the chart period, for that matter). That is the important fact required for the song to meet WP:NMUSIC and have it's own article. I Help, When I Can. [12] 12:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Mary Baldwin College. Courcelles 00:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
seems to fail both wp:sp and wp:G11. I'm nominating it here rather than with a speedy delete because there are some serious sources in the external links section, although none of them are actually cited in the article. however, the reputable sources seem to be profiles of students who attended the program rather than about the program itself. also, much of the editing was done by users named Pegadmit and PEGdirector, suggesting serious wp:coi. I can't see how to edit this to achieve anything like wp:npov. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Coverage is limited to local minor sources, does not meet general notability guidelines. A group of athletes training together is inherently not notable and the sources either do not mention group, or are local CutOffTies ( talk) 19:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Keep, and rename to Roman-Moorish kingdoms following PWilkinson's suggestion. I've done the rename DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Of the three sources listed, two do not even mention this area; the third states, correctly, that it was conquered by the Arabs (from the Byzantines, who took it from the Vandals). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I cannot find any significant coverage that shows this subject meets the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 23:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The delete side is quite correct here, the lack of sourcing is a major problem. Find some, and we can revisit this, come talk to me. Courcelles 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
A Sri Lankan Family Physician. One reference is an letter to the editor and all other references given in article are not about Dr. Fernando, but have him in passing... speaker at a conference or member of a board. Unable to find any references about him. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The band has garnered some coverage and recognition from third-party, reliable published sources and professional blogs such as Billboard magazine, the official Doctor Who magazine, io9, Digital Spy and Wired... Also, the fact that they have had 2 albums released under a well-known indie label, one of which was featured on the Heatseekers chart, makes the band just about qualified under WP:BAND. Improvement on article is still much needed. @pple complain 23:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The claims for notability of this subject appear to stem solely from their recent #23 listing on the Top Heatseekers chart. However, I'm not sure that this alone is enough to justify their notability: the Heatseekers chart isn't listed at WP:GOODCHARTS, and I can't find any reliable source that archives it, meaning that it is impossible to verify this claim. The ref given in the article doesn't mention Chameleon Circuit at all, and all other refs are from self-published sources, e.g. YouTube, Dailybooth, and websites from members of the band. The few reliable sources that I could find that mention the band name (such as The Telegraph, Digital Journal, Gazette & Herald and Newsround) seem to be referring to an actual chameleon circuit (i.e. the component in Doctor Who) and don't seem to be about this group. A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 23:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a hoax. Peridon ( talk) 23:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable newly created empire that appears to be in the US Breawycker ( talk to me!) 23:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Subject doesn't meet any criteria of WP:GNG. There are no reliable, secondary sources provided to prove notability. @pple complain 22:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
No real claim to notability. Eliminated reality show contestant, albums not on important label, no evidence of multiple significant roles in notable productions, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. PROD contested by article creator. MikeWazowski ( talk) 22:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. causa sui ( talk) 23:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, withdrawal of nomination. — C.Fred ( talk) 23:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The article starter removed the prod. A non-notable company. Joe Chill ( talk) 21:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Linkspammy list. Many redlinked or nonlinked entries. No sources. Dubious notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 21:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. @pple complain 22:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
No individual notability. Notable for being married to someone. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:PROF does not apply. — Finemann ( talk) 21:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Bejinhan talks 03:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm renominating this article, because it is non enyclopedic and it violates WP:NOT, which steadily says that WP is not a restaurant or touristic guide, it is obviously an ads, it features telephone numbers, address, what is served in its menu, this article is non notable and does not feature sources that inforce this fact. Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 20:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. @pple complain 20:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
This article was deleted when its name was Chicken and Rice, but it was recreated and split into two different articles, this one and 53rd and 6th which is also nominated for deletion. The recreated article features similar problems from the original one, which include poor sourcing, notability, the sources provided cannot sustain notability, full of POV, with informal text sounding like a recipe, and it violates WP:NOT Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 20:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I can only find a bunch of unreliable sources, local news, and press releases. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill ( talk) 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Cerejota ( talk) 07:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears utterly non-notable and probably a vanity article (based on the name of the original creator). Was tagged for notability which was removed without explanation. - Lilac Soul ( Talk • Contribs) 19:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
*Delete (unless...) We cannot rely solely on the h-Index (
here's why). The teaching award he has received is certainly not a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". In my interpretation, the subject fails
WP:PROF (and there is a lack of evidence of additional notability) unless it can be demonstrated that the Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra qualifies as a "major well-established academic journal".
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak
13:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability for this particular product. Kelly hi! 19:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, nominator has withdrawn nomination/no longer advocates deletion, and no other participants advocate deletion. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails to meet any notability standards under WP:ORG, other than being inspected and having a small award with limited coverage based on a google search. Kind of borderline to me, but I am on the delete side for this one. Sasquatch t| c 18:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Railpage Australia#Railcam_Project, where the information already exists. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't find any independent reliable sources for this Railcam Project. Fails basic notability guidelines WP:Note JimmyGiggle ( talk) 14:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply
What is an independent source? I have seen the cameras myself and I can view the output. What else would be required? Isn't the proof available on the photostream which is listed in the article? I can also find the camera output live and on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozrailfans ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Fixed nomination header. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 07:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't find anything from a 3rd party to point to the notability of the project. It is associated with the Railpage Australia website and Melbourne Wireless, but that isn't enough to meet WP:N. Possibly merge to either of these wiki entries? Wongm ( talk) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Might not hurt to renominate this in a few months, to see if we can get a fuller discussion, but there's just no consensus here to do anything. Courcelles 17:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
No proof of notability PtQa ( talk) 10:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. joe decker talk to me 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Not seeing enough third party reliable sources establishing notability; promotes the subject more than anything else. Likely conflict of issue given creator's edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Rewrite- I am one of the contributors. Thank you for this specific feedback. My plan is to carefully review other bios that are already up and do not have issues and to try to utilize thier methodology. I have found the citation / reference sections difficult to input and will try to sort that out. Can you tell me what GS and NPOV mean? Dr. Wolfe's work is cited by many other authors in peer-reviewed journals. There is a citation service which could be referenced- i don't know if that is acceptable. For eg, the reference to children of battered women syndrome is regularly referenced and attributed to he and his colleague. Is that the kind of reference you require? My thought had been that, since his work is in peer-reviewed journals, that in and of itself was "external"- anyone who has had to go through the peer acceptance process will appreciate what i am saying. Again, thank you for the helpful comments. Bll79llb ( talk) 12:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)bll79llb — Bll79llb ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep as significant contributor to his field - I edited out some of the "spam and puffery" — Pjaffe2 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was no consensus. causa sui ( talk) 23:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This article about a future product is based entirely on press releases and web sites from the manufacturer. There is no sustained independent coverage in serious journalistic or scholarly sources. There are passing mentions in a couple blogs, which is insufficient. See also WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of announcements of future products. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 15:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 15:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia policy not to have footballer articles until they have made their first team debuts, Hemmings has yet to do so. Ifore2010 ( talk) 20:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Warburton1368 ( talk) 21:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Didn't realise it. Ifore2010 ( talk) 21:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that the standards for musicians are not met. Courcelles 01:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable songwriter with no adequate sourcing from reliable secondary sources to meet notability guidelines. Warfieldian ( talk) 17:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence that the player has competed at a notable level. Argyle 4 Life talk 17:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Gold farming. causa sui ( talk) 23:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
This was kept because of SNOW arguments last time. I don't think anyone actually looked at the article, which hasn't really changed much. The article appears to be a heavily-biased editorial about the lack of virtues of trading money for in-game items/accounts/money for MMO(RPG)s. There are no sources that really use a term "game sweatshop". Furthermore, this appears to be basically a statement on Runescape's decision to deal with this dated from 2007. Nothing much has changed since then.
I would ask that moderators not close this on SNOW arguments given that there are serious issues with the article shown above that have not been addresses, including whether the term "game sweatshop" is even a relevant term. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as an empty article that is the product of an accident. The article's creator, who is in fact the author and sole editor of it:Joseph McDivitt, had already once accidentally submitted an Italian language article to the English Wikipedia. This is just a continuation of the same error three minutes later. Uncle G ( talk) 00:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Blank page — dargereldren T C G E R 15:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. This is a non-notable project - fails WP:GNG. Only 1 third party source which is insufficient to demonstrate notability. Also crystal balling as it hasn't actually done anything yet. ukexpat ( talk) 15:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:PROF not satisfied. Google Scholar and Google News does not give anything of significant importance. The references from The Times of India and Express India does not have any significant coverage about the subject (which makes his notability as a science popularizer highly questionable). Most other references are announcements about the talks given by the subject. Although he has published quite a few books, most are in the regional Indian language Marathi and I don't believe any of them are widely used or read. Further the publisher of his books, Rajhansa Prakashan is not a notable third-party publisher. It is highly possible that it is a firm owned by the subject. — Finemann ( talk) 14:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 18:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to Eric Ferrara. Has a few links but they seem to be trivial coverage or mentions pushing his books. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 ( talk) 14:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 17:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted under AfD, but may be different. PRODed with the reason "Long forgotten and unsourced BLP, not independently notable sufficient to support article." The-Pope ( talk) 14:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability - internet search returned nothing. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per consensus. A clear case of WP:NEO that should have been speedy deleted. @pple complain 20:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Rambling article presenting an utter neologism. Tempting to tag it for speedy deletion: A10 fork of fibromyalgia. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 12:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
COMMENT - Given this edit by the article's author - a housekeeping edit on the user page of PharmaMBA ( talk · contribs), can I suggest that PharmaMBA's comments are disregarded by the closing admin? If you look at the timings - PharmaMBA's account was created just a few hours after the article was originally PROD'ed and his first action was to remove the PROD notice. Then today the creating editor pops up and does some edits to PharmaMBA's user page. I can take it to WP:SPI if needed, but this is a minor-league attempt at socking it is so transparent that nobody will be fooled by it. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 14:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 18:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:PROF does not apply. The article was created by a doctoral student of Prof.Jagannathan User:Sameenahmedkhan. None of Prof.Jagannathan's publications used as references in the article has over 20 citations. The claim that Prof.Jagannathan made groundbreaking contribution to the fields mentioned in the article is highly disputed. He has not held any distinguished position or received any major awards according to his cv. — Finemann ( talk) 11:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:NTENNIS - there is no record of his play at ATP.com; claims of his tennis notability, all unsourced, are apparent fabrications Mayumashu ( talk) 07:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. Courcelles 17:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
whilst some of these Republic of Texas bilaterals are notable, I don't see this pairing between notable. neither state had embassies, and all this was a 6 year period of recognition which could easily be covered in Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas. trade was limited to 1 item. LibStar ( talk) 07:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Apart from appearing on one chart, this song is no more notable than any album track, and fails WP:SONGS. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and much of the article is derived from the comments of critics in album reviews. The singer has not promoted the song in any way, and the only background info given is the song credits and a short quote. Can I suggest that this article be incubated for now? — Andrew s talk 07:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was no consensus because 6 editors wanted to keep and 7 wanted to delete it.
Okay that's not really why, but those are the rough totals, i.e. a split between participants, and too few participants for such an incredibly long discussion. There were a number of valid points made by editors on both sides with respect to notability.
I think there's a reason this AfD sat around for several days without being closed, aside from it being really long, namely that there's no good way to "read" it given the nature of the discussion. One editor made 61 edits to this page and contributed a great deal of verbiage, while his main interlocutor contributed 25 and also said a bunch of stuff. This is not to mention the exchanges on Talk:Leonard R. Brand which are related to the discussion here (and which I read a lot of but most certainly did not read in total because, uhh, I just couldn't). That's all well and good and I don't doubt the good intentions of folks involved in the discussion, but for as long as this fiksybusiness is, there are few real participants, and that's a major problem given the large amount of side chatter and the lack of agreement as to the outcome.
So I see this as "no consensus" not so much because of the !vote totals or even the arguments--though that's part of it--but because this AfD just didn't unfold in a way that is conducive to coming to any sort of Wiki-style consensus. For now we default to keep due to the lack of consensus, but I think the following should really, really, really happen going forward:
Basically this is a "no consensus, let's try again later" close. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Minor creationist and Seventh Day Adventist-affiliated academic. Very little third party coverage, and what there is is almost solely on the subject of his (now long-discredited) Coconino Sandstone claims -- so this would appear to be WP:BLP1E and if considered worth keeping, could be merged into Flood geology. Any pretensions to WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR would appear to rest solely on (narrow and as yet unsubstantiated) claims of influence within SDA academia. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Note Hrafn is a rabid anti-creationist and anti-christian whose agenda is to eliminate anything that even hints at a NPOV on creationism and Christianity. He twists otherwise good WP policy to force his agenda and threaten his opposers. He is a bully.
75.244.91.121 (
talk)
00:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)—
75.244.91.121 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
Delete - Having read the article, there is nothing that establishes Brand's notability. His field is not unique, nor is his philosophy. For such a "notable" person, his biography is paltry, and there should be much more discussion of his work if that avenue was notable. MSJapan ( talk) 18:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Here is what the article looked like when it was first nominated for deletion on August 4, 2011.
Of course, here is what it looks like, today: Leonard R. Brand
Some informal statistics:
These are just the basics.
Some reflection on the data:
Disclosure: I have also placed this info on a section in the Leonard R. Brand article's talk page.
End of Comparison.
DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 21:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC) reply
In other words, in 5 days you have done ABSLUTELY NOTHING to establish the notablity of the subject of the article. NOTHING AT ALL. There are still exactly ZERO reliable independent sources that establish notablity, and that is the ONLY number that counts here on AfD. The only notable things you did manage to do was make a complete mess of this AfD page and shoot yourself in the foot with your forum shopping. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 21:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Notice the need for judgment, thus consensus"
These are very subjective standards. It is easy to understand why people dispute what is notable. What I believe is worthy of notice, significant, interesting, unusual enough to deserve attention will be different than what someone else's believes. The idea that this notability policy is cut and dried is misguided. So, this article is at the mercy of editor consensus, just like every other article in dispute. This consensus method is the best of all methods, IMO. But, it is a rough and tumble world. I like the experience and wisdom that you and others bring to the discussion. I like Wikipedia's dependance on administrator oversight because administrators themselves must go through a decision making process to become administrators. In any society, this allows the effective and careful editors to rise in the community. Cheers DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 06:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Hi Hunter_Kahn: I will work on a comprehensive answer to your question over the next little while. But, to help you see where I am so far, I will post this and then develop it further. I have listed each of your questions and have put the source author next to the question. All of these authors are cited in the article except Toumey. His book is my most recent interest. As an anthropologist, Toumey interviewed the GRI staff and discussed the GRI scientists' views as a united, coherent group. This includes Brand.
If you have time, read Toumey's section on GRI. Since GRI is treated as a coherent group of scientists and since he quotes Brand as one of the GRI scientists, the GRI section helps to explain Brand's views. Toumey quotes Brand on two points, i.e. the need for civility and the need to not advocate junk science. Toumey explains GRI's relationship to other creationist organizations. He describes GRI's critical approach to the other Creationist groups. Yet, at the end of the section, on page 141, he describes the positive relationship between GRI and the other Creationist groups. Toumey also describes the Adventist idea of holistic truth. He points out that Adventists believe there are various sources of truth, not just the Bible. He says this sets Adventists (like Brand) apart from other Creationists. Toumey also describes the dual nature of Adventism. Within the Church, they hold strongly to Biblical YEC Creationist views, while outside the church they defend the need for doing good science and criticize their fellow creationist for advocating unscientific positions. This explains Brand's position. Brand is a cautious supporter of YEC creationism and a staunch supporter of the scientific method even to the extent that if science cannot verify an element of creationist thought, first admit it, then do more scientific inquiry. This combination makes Adventism and Brand in particular unique in the realm of Creationism.
Here is the online information for the book:
Toumey, Christopher P. (1994). God's own scientists: creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 289. ISBN 0-8135-2043-6.
DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 06:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment I have decided that I have expended enough energy on trying to save the Brand article. If the decision is to keep it, I will enjoy working on it some more. It is just too hard to fuss with another editor to this extent. IMO, Dr. Brand is a notable figure in America, unassuming but a very interesting person who's story is worthy of notice. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 09:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment Even after a week of heavy editing, the article contains NO SOURCES that establish the notability of the subject in accordance with WP policy. I wish to confirm my vote for Delete having taken all the recent edits into account, as well as all of the discussion on this page, the article talk page, and the user pages of the editors involved. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 10:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment: Compare Marcus Ross article with Leonard R. Brand
Apology for Over-editing: I have just finished a discussion with a mentor regarding over-editing on an AfD article. As I think about the counsel, I realize I have been doing that here. My apologies. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 01:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability TonyStarks ( talk) 05:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Blue Oyster Cult. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
It's about the logo of Blue Oyster Cult, which logo has a history. The logo does not seem notable enough to need an article, so I propose a merge. -- Σ talk contribs 03:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't find any reliable sources to show notability. -- Σ talk contribs 02:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable comp per WP:MUSIC, without even an assertion that this sampler is special. Google shows nothing exciting. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king (edits) 01:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king (edits) 01:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It plays at third teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king (edits) 01:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. No prejudice for an early renomination if the article continues to fail GNG post this current AfD Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTE. Dritok appears only in In the Land of Invented Languages, and a blog post on a newspaper's web site . No mention elsewhere, and both sources are rather thin. In In the Land it is mentioned in a single paragraph on page 288-289 as part of a larger discussion about the Language Creation Conference, and that paragraph is as much about the audience as the language itself. The blog post is about an exhibit of well-known conlangs like Esperanto and Klingon that the language's creator, Don Boozer, set up at the library he works at. The third citation, the podcast, is not an independent source since Don Boozer is "secretary and librarian" of that site. Hermione is a dude ( talk) 21:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep: The WP:GNG speaks of "non-trivial" coverage. The guideline leaves it perhaps deliberately ambiguous as to how trivial is trivial, but enough coverage to write an article of this length is clearly non-trivial. All the article is from secondary sources, and it still stands at more than two screens' worth of length, not counting the AfD notice at the top. (Two of the sources are independent, too, and one is secondary but non-independent. Secondariness is distinct from independence, as independence includes intellectual independence, and as HiaD pointed out, Don Boozer is secretary and librarian of the podcast's site.)
The keyword in the GNG here is "subject". "Subject" means what something is about. In this case, the blog article is as much about Dritok and Mr. Boozer's development of it as about the Elvish, Esperanto and Beyond exhibit, perhaps even more so. Some people, oversimplifying the policy at WP:RS, say blogs are not reliable sources, but this is a blog associated with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, so this source is reliable.
HiaD has argued that the coverage in Ms. Okrent's book is as much about the audience' reaction as the language itself. But coverage of reaction is a Wikipedic part of describing something. Wikipedia articles should strive to include information that covers public reaction, reception, influence on the world and relevance to other things in addition to the obvious in-universe topical coverage. Guideline & Policy Wonk ( talk) 23:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
-- Sai ¿? ✍ 16:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at
which resulted in deletions. It plays at second teir of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. Mt king (edits) 11:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 14:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:Notability, no? Most notable thing about him seems to be his having been the subject of a movie, so his notability seems to hinge on the prominence of this movie. (The article, at least, needs to be rewritten to say in the intro why this person is notable.) Mayumashu ( talk) 12:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet NHOCKEY. Coudnt find coverage on player from websites and has not won an award in his junior league. USA1168 ( talk) 02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
A Christian rapper who released two albums in the early 90s. Reference in article and most of the references I could find were to the site Christian Music Archive. The Archive is a site where anybody can edit articles. Found two newspaper articles to her local Dallas paper about her and two other local rappers. Papers were behind a pay wall. HUGE NOTE: The article has her wrong name. She goes by MC GeGee or MC Ge Gee. There is another rapper who goes by MC Gee Gee and lets just say he loves "poop" and has some images that will haunt me forever. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Kylie Minogue singles discography. Courcelles 00:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I am suggesting a redirect & merge to Kylie Minogue singles discography (not all of the info, just the info that is not OR). After years of battling with this article inside of WP:Kylie, there does not seem to be any reliable source proving this song was on the Taiwan Singles Chart (no reliable source for the chart period, for that matter). That is the important fact required for the song to meet WP:NMUSIC and have it's own article. I Help, When I Can. [12] 12:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Mary Baldwin College. Courcelles 00:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
seems to fail both wp:sp and wp:G11. I'm nominating it here rather than with a speedy delete because there are some serious sources in the external links section, although none of them are actually cited in the article. however, the reputable sources seem to be profiles of students who attended the program rather than about the program itself. also, much of the editing was done by users named Pegadmit and PEGdirector, suggesting serious wp:coi. I can't see how to edit this to achieve anything like wp:npov. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Coverage is limited to local minor sources, does not meet general notability guidelines. A group of athletes training together is inherently not notable and the sources either do not mention group, or are local CutOffTies ( talk) 19:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Keep, and rename to Roman-Moorish kingdoms following PWilkinson's suggestion. I've done the rename DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Of the three sources listed, two do not even mention this area; the third states, correctly, that it was conquered by the Arabs (from the Byzantines, who took it from the Vandals). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
I cannot find any significant coverage that shows this subject meets the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 23:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The delete side is quite correct here, the lack of sourcing is a major problem. Find some, and we can revisit this, come talk to me. Courcelles 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
A Sri Lankan Family Physician. One reference is an letter to the editor and all other references given in article are not about Dr. Fernando, but have him in passing... speaker at a conference or member of a board. Unable to find any references about him. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC) reply