The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
he is only a political candidate so does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. fails WP:BIO. the death threat coverage is sad but not enough to warrant an article. if he does get elected than he would satisfy WP:POLITICIAN but not yet. LibStar ( talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP, but a rename is probably in order. I do not see a consensus below for a particular rename, nor am I about to impose one by fiat, so Mandsford's prophecy has come to fruition. I now punt to a talk page near you. postdlf ( talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This topic of this article is a neologism constructed through wp:synth. The two sources that are used to support it do only use the phrase once, but are about other topics. This is conflict with WP:NEO which states that "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.", and WP:RS which states that "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
There are exactly 13 references to "Swedish diaspora" in google scholar. The only one that mentions the phrase in the title is an MA thesis about Diasporic communities in Sweden who come from abroad [1] - here it is clearly used as a euphemism for immigrant communities in Sweden. None of the sources discuss the existence of an actual diasporic community of Swedes outside of Sweden.
The academic definition of the word diaspora is as a group of people living outside of their homeland but maintaning a sense of belonging to the ancestral home. This is the description given in the preface of the Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Volume I: Overviews and Topics; Volume II: Diaspora Communities Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember, Ian Skoggard (eds.)p. xiii) - which does btw. not mention Swedish or a Swedish diaspora even once in its almost 1000 pages. No evidence has been presented that Swedish communities outside of Sweden constitute an actual diaspora, rather than simple expatriate communities. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
In conclusion: the topic "Swedish Diaspora" neither has notable presence in reliable sources, nor can it be defended as a simple shorthand for "Swedish emigration". Whether the article is deleted or renamed is irrelevant as this AfD has had the purpose of establishing that the topic "Swedish diaspora" is not sufficiently notable to merit an article in this encyclopedia. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply
There is a combined RFC for Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora and Diaspora.
The words and actions of both Maunus and Griswaldo make their joint racist agenda clear. They are saying that if you are white, then you shouldn't be able to call yourself a "diaspora." It is almost like they are advocating for little brown people at the expense of the white race. Scandanavians are people too. Why all the fuss? Chacha gurl B ( talk) 19:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)— Chacha gurl B ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep It pretty much needs a rename. There just is not enough scholarly use of the title as it currently exists. And it is going to be pretty hard to come up with a name that isn't 10 words long. But the subject is almost empirically observable to be notable, and not just part of the emigration to the USA, either, but from as far back as the Viking expansion and the Swedish Empire. And also, the current title would make a good redirect, so killing it to remake the article later under a new name does not make sense either. Anarchangel ( talk) 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
unremarkable fan club, orphaned article, does not meet WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in multiple3rd party sources. Supplied references are primary sources, mention the organization only in passing or are simple "community calendar" type articles mentioning an upcoming event. RadioFan ( talk) 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
As this group is 35 years old, most of its history took place before the WWW became important enough for most media to post and archive articles on-line. Thus references to OSFS, and its activities are lost to on-line referencing. Add to that, the city lost one of its two major newspapers the Ottawa Journal, halving the potential archives that can be referenced. Additionally, the newspaper that came into being in 1987, the Ottawa Sun is like the New York Post -- not concerned about literary societies, and is more about Sports and promoting the Conservative cause.
Out of the Ottawa Science Fiction Society grew many things. A number of its members went on to because well known in their fields, Fantasy writers Charles de Lint, Galad Elflandsson, Charles R. Saunders; SF Writers like Robert J. Sawyer, Spider Robinson, Sansoucy Walker ( http://www.sfcanada.ca/autumn2005/sansoucymemoriam.htm) and artists like Den Beauvais ( http://www.denbeauvais.com/) who worked on the Aliens Comic Book, Aputik ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0306730/) and Laura Herring ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2665116/), Jim Cleland ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2655451/) and Janet L. Hetherington.
From this organization's ranks also came the people who ran events like the World Fantasy Convention in 1984, the Furry Convention (C-ACE), and SF Conventions Pinekone, & CAN-CON.
If OSFS is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, then all of these groups should be removed as well LASFS, BASFA, Birmingham Science Fiction Group, ISFiC, NESFA, Northwest Science Fiction Society, Orange County Science Fiction Club, Philadelphia Science Fiction Society.
Of course, the worst part of this is that I have spend all this time justifying the existence of this article that I didn't write for a group I haven't been a member of for decades rather than adding all of this information to the entry itself.
farrellj ( talk) 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The aim of Wikipedia's sourcing rules is to make sure that it's content is relevant and verifiable. The former is always going to be a subjective thing, while the latter is somewhat more objective, but RadoiFan's and Hairhorn's make the it seem that a source such as a newspaper that has been published for a 165 years is questionable. Further more, the quick deletion attempt doesn't give the article a chance to develop at all. I noticed comments in the history section of people who are going to work on improving the volume of citations in the article. So I don't think that the current rush to judgement is justified. Nhaflinger ( talk) 17:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Good luck to all you brave souls who participate in the subsequent renaming discussion. Clear eyes, full hearts. postdlf ( talk) 02:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This topic of this article is a neologism constructed through wp:synth. The two sources that are used to support it do only use the phrase once, but are about other topics. This is conflict with WP:NEO which states that "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.", and WP:RS which states that "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
There are exactly 16 references to "Norwegian diaspora" in google scholar. Clunies Ross' (an australian professor of Norse poetry) is one of them. None of the refrerences use the phrase in a way that suggests that this is a set phrase or concept rather than an ad hoc coinage to describe particular migrations of Norwegians in the 19th and 20th century. One other source mentions the phrase in relation to the colonization of Iceland by Norsemen from what later became Norway, she writes "Icelandic archaeology also confirms the rather puzzling picture from the family sagas of the first settlers not as an aristocratic Norwegian diaspora, but as materially poor subsistence farmers, who had few prestige objects from abroad, and modest farmhouses." The usage of Clunies Ross is taken out of context and she clearly delimits the scope of the statement saying that it is only valid "in this context'". Clearly neither of these sources can be used as sourcing for the notion that that there is a general academic consensus that the settlement of of Iceland and the Faroe Islands are part of the same phenomenon that caused the emigration of Norwegians 1000 years later.
The academic definition of the word diaspora is as a group of people living outside of their homeland but maintaning a sense of belonging to the ancestral home. This is the description given in the preface of the Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Volume I: Overviews and Topics; Volume II: Diaspora Communities Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember, Ian Skoggard (eds.)p. xiii) - which does btw. not mention Norway or a Norwegian diaspora even once in its almost 1000 pages. No evidence has been presented that Norwegian communities outside of Norway constitute an actual diaspora, rather than simple expatriate communities. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The rule is WP:BEFORE: where there is an alternative to deletion, don't delete. In this case there's an alternative, which is to convert this title into a redirect to Viking expansion. The references already provided in the article show that "Norwegian diaspora" is an attested alternative name for the Viking expansion, in scholarly literature. As such it's a plausible search term and we can do better for our users than to give them a redlink.
The reason why "redirect" trumps "delete" in this case is because a "delete" outcome leaves a redlink that directly encourages inexperienced editors to write an article in that space. If we give them a redirect to follow instead, then we can save a lot of discussion and process the next time around.— S Marshall T/ C 12:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply
<--It is your contention that "Norwegian diaspora" cannot be used to mean "Norwegian emigrant community" even though about 15+ Google Book results use the phrase to mean exactly that. The basis of that contention is a series of different claims: 1) 1) that WP:RS do not suffice to determine the meaning of words because scholarly definitions of any word are privileged, 2) that the policy WP:NEO forbids any use of "diaspora" that scholars have not extensively studied, and 3) that WP:SYNTH forbids using "diaspora" in article titles with its increasingly-common meaning of "dispersed community sharing some kind of identity" (and scholars too are using the term just that way, Google "gay diaspora"). All those contentions and claims are disputed. That is why we need a wider discussion. Sharktopus talk 22:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply
In conclusion: the topic "Norwegian Diaspora" neither has notable presence in reliable sources, nor can it be defended as a simple shorthand for "Norwegian emigration". Whether the article is deleted or renamed is irrelevant as this AfD has had the purpose of establishing that the topic "Norwegian diaspora" is not sufficiently notable to merit an article in this encyclopedia. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Norwegian emigration, Norwegian emigrants and their descendants, and Norwegian diaspora communities are notable topics. It would be efficient, simple, short, in accord with Wikipedia practice for other similar articles, and in accord with our policy WP:TITLE that an article covering these topics have the name Norwegian diaspora. Sharktopus talk 04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The AFD has an RFC for both Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora.
— Chacha gurl B ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep It pretty much needs a rename. There just is not enough scholarly use of the title as it currently exists. And it is going to be pretty hard to come up with a name that isn't 10 words long. But the subject is almost empirically observable to be notable, and not just part of the emigration to the USA, either, but from as far back as the Viking expansion and the Swedish Empire. And also, the current title would make a good redirect, so killing it to remake the article later under a new name does not make sense either.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company (do we cover every opal company with its own boutique?). Speedy declined, presumably on the basis of the newspaper cites. Miracle Pen ( talk) 21:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nom here. lifebaka ++ 20:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't find any claims of notability from reliable sources. The film's creator does not appear notable, either. ceran thor 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails the general notability guidelines. No reliable sources for verification. (Author contested prod) OSborn arf contribs. 20:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Although I disagree with the statement at the bottom that there is an "overwhelming" consensus, (not a vote and all that) there is a rough consensus to keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Aside from the fact that the article has been tagged as referenceless since March 2008 (that's 3 years), I don't believe there is any reason whatsoever to have an article which is a CONTENT FORK of the original Golden Globe awards article. The sole difference is that this article is based on all the black nominees and I find that highly trivial and unnecessary. All the black nominees are listed in their awards' appropriate article. There is no need to single them out here. Feed back ☎ 20:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Feed back ☎ 20:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be notable, no g/news hits. No reliable sources to verify with. Being used as spam by a user with an apparent COI. OSborn arf contribs. 18:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:CRYSTAL The Bushranger One ping only 19:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable information. I don't consider the references given to be reliable sources, and the majority of the information presented is speculation or hearsay. I'm not saying there won't be a Windows 8 -- there probably will be (though potentially with a different name). But we simply don't have enough information right now to make a reasonable article out of it. This is precisely what WP:CRYSTAL talks about. Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 16:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was PNG'd (delete). The Bushranger One ping only 19:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This article was originally written by someone apparently trying to plug Volvo's diplomatic sales (a more directly promotional article was removed). Now that I've removed the Volvo stuff from this one, what's left asserts no real notability and is unsourced, and I wonder if there's anything of encyclopedic importance here at all - there are lots of "discount sales" schemes for all sort of customers all over the place. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if notability established in the future. The Bushranger One ping only 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
unreferenced, orphaned, original research. 2nd'd prod challenged by article creator. RadioFan ( talk) 12:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable amateur football club playing only in the second highest amateur league. Travelbird ( talk) 12:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep all. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
It is not a notable league. Since this is a league within the Philippines, and having done a check, there is no league system/pyramid in the coutnry and therefore isn't the top flight and is just an 'isolated' league. It's also not overseen/governed by a recognized FA. Banana Fingers ( talk) 11:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N. This team has played twice ever, in an unnotable cup competition. Stu.W UK ( talk) 11:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus seems to lean toward the notion that the ship isn't quite there yet in terms of notability. Juliancolton ( talk) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD (as Le pietre yacht). Fails WP:GNG. It's just someone's yacht. It came third in a non-notable race. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about your yacht, however nice it is. Also nominating Le pietre yacht - duplicate of this page. Shirt58 ( talk) 09:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The race IS notable and quite popular with those who know about wooden gulets. There is no page about it in wiki yet, but I am sure it will be here soon. On Wikipedia there are pages about other yachts and building companies, like Perini Navi or Aegean Yacht or Cobra yacht and many many others. If you intend to remove this page please remove similar pages as well. I agree that page Le pietre yacht is duplicated, it can be removed. But not this Le Pietre (yacht). 35m vessel is not someone's pet or house, it is a big yacht that deserves it's place in the yacht's list. The page is written according to all wiki's recommendations for writing about yachts Natalia Spatar ( talk) 10:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was already deleted. Some Wiki Editor ( talk) 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Proposed name for a data storage space unit. Has not been widely accepted, nor is there any machine available with such amount of data space. The article was speedily deleted twice on request by other editors - I thought I'd give this an AfD to settle the matter. Travelbird ( talk) 09:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Coach of a non-professional team, only coverage in a local newspaper and college related source. Travelbird ( talk) 09:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete - G4 recreation of an article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Order of Druids and, in any event, A7 -- B ( talk) 01:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
A search didn't show up evidence of notability. Dougweller ( talk) 09:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:MADEUP The Bushranger One ping only 19:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced neologisms. Contested prod by article creator. Zachlipton ( talk) 08:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Juliancolton ( talk) 23:06, 28 February 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}} . |
Fairly well written article about a candidate for political office, however the main purpose of the article seems to be to promote this person. As a candidate for a major party he gets some local news coverage, however if not elected his long term notability is in serious doubt. Should be re-added only if and when this person actually is elected. Travelbird ( talk) 08:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Claims to be famous in Hong Kong. Google turns up nothing but a linkedin/facebook/blogs. This is quite possibly self-promotion. Travelbird ( talk) 08:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Juliancolton ( talk) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Association football player who has not played for a fully professional club. He has only played on loan in the semi-professional Scottish Second Division. Does not meet WP:N or WP:NFOOTY guidelines. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 07:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Juliancolton ( talk) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Association football player who has not played for a fully professional club. He has only played on loan in the semi-professional Scottish Second Division. Does not meet WP:N or WP:NFOOTY guidelines. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 07:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Juliancolton ( talk) 23:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Association football player who has not played for a fully professional club. He has only played (on loan) in the semi-professional Scottish Second Division. Does not meet WP:N or WP:NFOOTY guidelines. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 07:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if reliable sources can be found. The Bushranger One ping only 18:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The article asserts notability and, if verifiable, would be notable. But it provides absolutely no way to verify these events (not that I doubt it, per se; it's that the article, as written, makes it impossible to verify), and provides insufficient context. I realize that deletion is not a substitute to cleanup, but in this case, cleanup is impossible, and the article as written is impossible to salvage. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 06:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Renaming, if desired, can be done through the usual methods. The Bushranger One ping only 18:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This might be a community, in which case it, like all communities, will be notable -- but it might be just an estate, in which case it probably is not. The only avail ref is compatible with either interpretation. The lack of geographic references--or at least lack of any I can locate-- implies it may be just an estate or house. Sending it here from Prod to make sure it gets a visible discussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Actor does not meet WP:N criteria. Only reference is IMDB (not a reliable source in and of itself anyway), but a look at his IMDB page shows no credits, only a self-submitted resume. Credits are mostly as a Technical Advisor and for minor roles "police officer," "soldier," "thief." Google searches aren't turning up much that isn't self-published/promotional, certainly not substantial coverage in reliable sources as is required. Zachlipton ( talk) 05:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I had redirected this unreferenced BLP of a non-notable artist to his former employer, but this was reverted without discussion. Artist has two albums, neither of which seem to have charted or to otherwise have generated any coverage.
A Google News search indicates that we are not dealing with an artist here is notable by our standards. Note: he has two albums with a company that has a Wikipedia article, Suburban Noize Records, but that's hardly an impressive outfit, in my opinion. Drmies ( talk) 05:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
- Diversity8 ( talk) 09:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The two linked sites we then have to look at are newstimes.com and celebstoner.com. The newstime.com interview, here, with band members, (sans Pakelika), mentions Pakelika. Unfortunately, “where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves”, this self-referencing cannot be used as independent evidence.
The celebstoner article, here, is “Pakelika's exclusive blog about what's been going on”. Again the subject talks about himself, and again self-referencing rules-out the source as independent evidence.
None of the above links provide disinterested viable reference and should be disreguarded as proof of such.
User:Dream Focus’s celebstoner link, here, also has parts where Pakelika self-references. Where he doesn’t, the web site declares, under the heading of "Pakelika for President!": “Pakelika, the Kottonmouth Kings’ "Visual Assassin," has announced his entry into the 2008 presidential campaign. The Top CelebStoner joins TV talk-show host Stephen Colbert and actor Fred Thompson as celebrity candidates. The 6-for-7 Pakelika, who wears a mask on stage while dancing robotically to the band's hip-hop/punk-rock music and puffing from a vaporizer...” . Is there an independent viable source to show that this talk show espisode took place on Network TV? - I can't find it, but others might have better luck. My view on this is that celebstoner.com is biased, being a web site unambiguously promoting the use of a certain drug, reviewing a user of the same drug.
Proposal if article is to be saved: All in-line cites to the non-viable sources would be removed, effectively all in-line cites in the article. Any links that exist now to be under External links, but not those existing that run against Wikipedia:External links protocol, see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. The intro sentence and Biography section, where nothing is evidenced, removed totally, and replaced with a simple standard intro sentence - name, where born, birth name, and very brief unbiased description. A Career Section would provide any verified information if there is enough of it, but no unsupported fancruft, blogese, promotion, quotes, hyberbole or original research. The Pakelika for President section would go, being completely unreferenced text. Mention of his candidacy for President can be made - there will be a few links there. Effectively, to save this article, it would need to be reduced to a stub. But I still think Delete.
However, see Wikipedia:Notability (music) – it is all that matters here for a judgement on deletion. Acabashi ( talk) 20:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per G7 by Stephen ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Subject is not sufficiently
notable and article lacks
reliable sources. The article is self-sourced or sourced via SEO channels of promotion. Advertising. Works are self-published.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕)) 05:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete Salting it has been proposed, since this was recreated after a 2008 deletion. If re-re-created, that option should be considered. Mandsford 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The only things that have changed since the previous AfD are his two years at Curzon Ashton and Salford City, both of the Northern Premier League Division One North, four divisions below England's lowest wholly professional league. The phrase "Giggs works as a truck driver at Trafford Park when not playing for or managing the club" gives useful context for those unfamiliar with the English football system. Looking at the sources used, it's quite clear that the Mail, BBC and to an extent Manchester Evening News coverage is primarily due to the fact that Rhodri is the brother of Ryan ( WP:NOTINHERITED). The rest of the sources exist exclusively to cover non-league football, which means they are not worthy of consideration when deciding whether Rhodri meets the GNG.
I considered speedy-ing under CSD G4. But at least one established editor believes that he merits an article, so I have taken it here for wider discussion. — W F C— 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — W F C— 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Auburn Tigers#Toomer's Trees poisoned. Mandsford 20:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Biography of a person known for a single event, does not meet guidelines for inclusion RadioFan ( talk) 03:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per G11 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This appears to be an advertisement for a non-notable cricket league. Steven 2142 ( talk) 03:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Mandsford 20:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. nothing in gnews [29]. and IMDB reveals a very limited career. [30]. insufficient info to establish any major roles. LibStar ( talk) 08:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. A good deal of work has been done on the article to address the original objections about it being merely a dictionary definition. Sourcing of the entries, hopefully, will follow, and some "citation needed" tags are in order. Mandsford 20:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is a dictionary definition that has not evolved beyond that in 3 years. Better for wiktionary. c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 06:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Concern about WP:CREEP in WP:GAMECRUFT may be valid, but I don't think a convincing case can be made that the "random monster you raise/kill for XP" lists, that only state "monster X has ability Y and costs Z", are comparable to a backhand or to Alekhine's Defense. Consensus can change, but it shows no signs of having changed here. The Bushranger One ping only 18:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Before anyone says WP:OTHERCRAP exists like this for other video games that involve collecting monsters... keep in mind that this is pretty much the same as having a List of Pogs. Yes. I realize that there are games where the entire point of it is to collect things, be it pogs, or monsters, or tiny coins. But Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. We should explain how and why the collection matters in the main game article, but should not cross over into game guide territory by offering a complete list of every item you collect in order to obtain victory. Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Shooterwalker ( talk) 05:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:NOT#PLOT The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This topic fails WP:N due to a lack of third party sources. Third party sources exist for the novel itself. But there's no basis in references for creating a WP:CONTENTFORK of For Want of a Nail (novel) that focuses entirely on plot, especially since Wikipedia is not just plot summaries (see: WP:NOT#PLOT). Shooterwalker ( talk) 02:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Guoguo12 --Talk-- 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Extremely minor Rugby player (only four games) with not enough significant reliable secondary source coverage to meet notability Sadads ( talk) 01:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but only one !voter has addressed the issue of sourcing. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
at first I thought it just needed a rewrite, but looking at the refs I don't think it passes NN Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO and serious WP:COI. Article was created by the PR/sales person (Anne-Laure Buffard Albuffard ( talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than to promote Galerie Nathalie Obadia. This is one Part of a long history of Spamming and promotion by this individual on Wikipedia, see also - Spam case. Self-promotion and marketing gimmicks are NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 ( talk) 16:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Autobiographical, non-notable, very resume-like BurtAlert ( talk) 02:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software product. I am unable to find any independent secondary sources that discuss this video game. VQuakr ( talk) 02:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Drmies, if you want to knock this around some more let me know and I'll be glad to reopen it (or you can renominate it at your leasure). Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
It exists, but it is not notable: these results do not indicate awards having been won, discussion having taken place, or anyone writing for a reliable source having paid attention to the book. Drmies ( talk) 04:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:NEO The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Term presented by WP in a sense that is found only handful of hardly cited articles. The term is more commonly found in a generic sense, except in material related to "Mr. Vetro" and AgentSheets. -- bala biot 14:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There's a consensus here that the subject, while failing WP:NFOOTBALL does pass WP:GNG. However, for future AFDs, some pointers to these sources, if online, would be helpful. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, reason given was; "5 different sources from the BBC and Evening Standard are significant sources". Footballer clearly fails WP:FOOTYN as he has never played at a fully-professional or full international level of football. The sources provided are not enough to pass WP:GNG, there are a couple of trivial articles about Wingrove personally but the others fail WP:NTEMP as they are merely passing references of name-checks in match reports. -- Jimbo [online] 20:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
NOTE: The author of the article was not informed of this discussion by the nominator. I have now informed the author. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. If an article on the Virginia paintball case existed, then the result would be to merge this into that article per WP:BLP1E. Barring that, there is not much that can be done based on this AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP1E. While the article may look impressive, most of the sources are primary in nature - I have been unable to find evidence that he reaches the standard required for a BLP covered for a single set of events. Ironholds ( talk) 22:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N. Google news search returns no hits and google search returns the organization's site and wiki mirrors. Also nominating South Moluccas national football team. They have only ever played at this tournament. I initially turned their page into a redirect to UNPO Cup thinking I'd find some notability for the tournament, but didn't. I reverted the team's article back to help discussion. Stu.W UK ( talk) 01:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 04:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Seems like a well written article, but after further research, I believe that it is simply a promotion for the author's website. The only sources in the article are to the author's site, and it is based heavily on his work. Pax85 ( talk) 05:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fanfiction; fails WP:WEB. I understand this may be one of the most well-known pieces of fanfiction - certainly, it seems to be the only one with a Wikipedia article - but nonetheless I don't believe it passes our inclusion guidelines. While it has been mentioned in reliable sources, the only coverage is trivial: see [39], [40] and [41]. It is also apparently included in the documentary Ringers: Lord of the Fans, but I don't think that's enough for notability. Currently, it has a brief mention in the Lord of the Rings article; that seems fine, but there isn't enough coverage to justify a separate article. (I note it was previously kept at AfD, but that was back in 2005, and our standards have changed a lot since then.) Robofish ( talk) 01:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ironholds ( talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply
It was literally only used at that one Scott Brown rally, and all coverage relates to that. The rest seems to be a possible advertisement for this tea party flag company. There has been no notable use, or even use as far as I can tell, outside of this one event. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
*Merge, per WikiCopter, into
American flag or
Betsy Ross flag. Per nom., not notable enough to warrant its own article.--
JayJasper (
talk) 04:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
Administrator's note: I am reopening the debate for further comments, based on the outcome of my own deletion review. Mandsford 20:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Can't PROD as one was removed in 2009. Fails to meet WP:V or WP:N. The only link is dead and that was to a forum anyway. Stu.W UK ( talk) 00:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete ( G7) by Athaenara. Non-admin closure -- Pgallert ( talk) 15:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This biographical article on an author does not appear to meet the applicable criteria for notability. I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources about this person. VQuakr ( talk) 00:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. References are to youtube and blogs, nothing reliable. Strong promotional tone and admitted COI as well. VQuakr ( talk) 00:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
he is only a political candidate so does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. fails WP:BIO. the death threat coverage is sad but not enough to warrant an article. if he does get elected than he would satisfy WP:POLITICIAN but not yet. LibStar ( talk) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP, but a rename is probably in order. I do not see a consensus below for a particular rename, nor am I about to impose one by fiat, so Mandsford's prophecy has come to fruition. I now punt to a talk page near you. postdlf ( talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This topic of this article is a neologism constructed through wp:synth. The two sources that are used to support it do only use the phrase once, but are about other topics. This is conflict with WP:NEO which states that "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.", and WP:RS which states that "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
There are exactly 13 references to "Swedish diaspora" in google scholar. The only one that mentions the phrase in the title is an MA thesis about Diasporic communities in Sweden who come from abroad [1] - here it is clearly used as a euphemism for immigrant communities in Sweden. None of the sources discuss the existence of an actual diasporic community of Swedes outside of Sweden.
The academic definition of the word diaspora is as a group of people living outside of their homeland but maintaning a sense of belonging to the ancestral home. This is the description given in the preface of the Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Volume I: Overviews and Topics; Volume II: Diaspora Communities Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember, Ian Skoggard (eds.)p. xiii) - which does btw. not mention Swedish or a Swedish diaspora even once in its almost 1000 pages. No evidence has been presented that Swedish communities outside of Sweden constitute an actual diaspora, rather than simple expatriate communities. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
In conclusion: the topic "Swedish Diaspora" neither has notable presence in reliable sources, nor can it be defended as a simple shorthand for "Swedish emigration". Whether the article is deleted or renamed is irrelevant as this AfD has had the purpose of establishing that the topic "Swedish diaspora" is not sufficiently notable to merit an article in this encyclopedia. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply
There is a combined RFC for Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora and Diaspora.
The words and actions of both Maunus and Griswaldo make their joint racist agenda clear. They are saying that if you are white, then you shouldn't be able to call yourself a "diaspora." It is almost like they are advocating for little brown people at the expense of the white race. Scandanavians are people too. Why all the fuss? Chacha gurl B ( talk) 19:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)— Chacha gurl B ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep It pretty much needs a rename. There just is not enough scholarly use of the title as it currently exists. And it is going to be pretty hard to come up with a name that isn't 10 words long. But the subject is almost empirically observable to be notable, and not just part of the emigration to the USA, either, but from as far back as the Viking expansion and the Swedish Empire. And also, the current title would make a good redirect, so killing it to remake the article later under a new name does not make sense either. Anarchangel ( talk) 08:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
unremarkable fan club, orphaned article, does not meet WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage in multiple3rd party sources. Supplied references are primary sources, mention the organization only in passing or are simple "community calendar" type articles mentioning an upcoming event. RadioFan ( talk) 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
As this group is 35 years old, most of its history took place before the WWW became important enough for most media to post and archive articles on-line. Thus references to OSFS, and its activities are lost to on-line referencing. Add to that, the city lost one of its two major newspapers the Ottawa Journal, halving the potential archives that can be referenced. Additionally, the newspaper that came into being in 1987, the Ottawa Sun is like the New York Post -- not concerned about literary societies, and is more about Sports and promoting the Conservative cause.
Out of the Ottawa Science Fiction Society grew many things. A number of its members went on to because well known in their fields, Fantasy writers Charles de Lint, Galad Elflandsson, Charles R. Saunders; SF Writers like Robert J. Sawyer, Spider Robinson, Sansoucy Walker ( http://www.sfcanada.ca/autumn2005/sansoucymemoriam.htm) and artists like Den Beauvais ( http://www.denbeauvais.com/) who worked on the Aliens Comic Book, Aputik ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0306730/) and Laura Herring ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2665116/), Jim Cleland ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2655451/) and Janet L. Hetherington.
From this organization's ranks also came the people who ran events like the World Fantasy Convention in 1984, the Furry Convention (C-ACE), and SF Conventions Pinekone, & CAN-CON.
If OSFS is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, then all of these groups should be removed as well LASFS, BASFA, Birmingham Science Fiction Group, ISFiC, NESFA, Northwest Science Fiction Society, Orange County Science Fiction Club, Philadelphia Science Fiction Society.
Of course, the worst part of this is that I have spend all this time justifying the existence of this article that I didn't write for a group I haven't been a member of for decades rather than adding all of this information to the entry itself.
farrellj ( talk) 01:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The aim of Wikipedia's sourcing rules is to make sure that it's content is relevant and verifiable. The former is always going to be a subjective thing, while the latter is somewhat more objective, but RadoiFan's and Hairhorn's make the it seem that a source such as a newspaper that has been published for a 165 years is questionable. Further more, the quick deletion attempt doesn't give the article a chance to develop at all. I noticed comments in the history section of people who are going to work on improving the volume of citations in the article. So I don't think that the current rush to judgement is justified. Nhaflinger ( talk) 17:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Good luck to all you brave souls who participate in the subsequent renaming discussion. Clear eyes, full hearts. postdlf ( talk) 02:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply
This topic of this article is a neologism constructed through wp:synth. The two sources that are used to support it do only use the phrase once, but are about other topics. This is conflict with WP:NEO which states that "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.", and WP:RS which states that "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
There are exactly 16 references to "Norwegian diaspora" in google scholar. Clunies Ross' (an australian professor of Norse poetry) is one of them. None of the refrerences use the phrase in a way that suggests that this is a set phrase or concept rather than an ad hoc coinage to describe particular migrations of Norwegians in the 19th and 20th century. One other source mentions the phrase in relation to the colonization of Iceland by Norsemen from what later became Norway, she writes "Icelandic archaeology also confirms the rather puzzling picture from the family sagas of the first settlers not as an aristocratic Norwegian diaspora, but as materially poor subsistence farmers, who had few prestige objects from abroad, and modest farmhouses." The usage of Clunies Ross is taken out of context and she clearly delimits the scope of the statement saying that it is only valid "in this context'". Clearly neither of these sources can be used as sourcing for the notion that that there is a general academic consensus that the settlement of of Iceland and the Faroe Islands are part of the same phenomenon that caused the emigration of Norwegians 1000 years later.
The academic definition of the word diaspora is as a group of people living outside of their homeland but maintaning a sense of belonging to the ancestral home. This is the description given in the preface of the Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures Around the World. Volume I: Overviews and Topics; Volume II: Diaspora Communities Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember, Ian Skoggard (eds.)p. xiii) - which does btw. not mention Norway or a Norwegian diaspora even once in its almost 1000 pages. No evidence has been presented that Norwegian communities outside of Norway constitute an actual diaspora, rather than simple expatriate communities. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The rule is WP:BEFORE: where there is an alternative to deletion, don't delete. In this case there's an alternative, which is to convert this title into a redirect to Viking expansion. The references already provided in the article show that "Norwegian diaspora" is an attested alternative name for the Viking expansion, in scholarly literature. As such it's a plausible search term and we can do better for our users than to give them a redlink.
The reason why "redirect" trumps "delete" in this case is because a "delete" outcome leaves a redlink that directly encourages inexperienced editors to write an article in that space. If we give them a redirect to follow instead, then we can save a lot of discussion and process the next time around.— S Marshall T/ C 12:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply
<--It is your contention that "Norwegian diaspora" cannot be used to mean "Norwegian emigrant community" even though about 15+ Google Book results use the phrase to mean exactly that. The basis of that contention is a series of different claims: 1) 1) that WP:RS do not suffice to determine the meaning of words because scholarly definitions of any word are privileged, 2) that the policy WP:NEO forbids any use of "diaspora" that scholars have not extensively studied, and 3) that WP:SYNTH forbids using "diaspora" in article titles with its increasingly-common meaning of "dispersed community sharing some kind of identity" (and scholars too are using the term just that way, Google "gay diaspora"). All those contentions and claims are disputed. That is why we need a wider discussion. Sharktopus talk 22:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC) reply
In conclusion: the topic "Norwegian Diaspora" neither has notable presence in reliable sources, nor can it be defended as a simple shorthand for "Norwegian emigration". Whether the article is deleted or renamed is irrelevant as this AfD has had the purpose of establishing that the topic "Norwegian diaspora" is not sufficiently notable to merit an article in this encyclopedia. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Norwegian emigration, Norwegian emigrants and their descendants, and Norwegian diaspora communities are notable topics. It would be efficient, simple, short, in accord with Wikipedia practice for other similar articles, and in accord with our policy WP:TITLE that an article covering these topics have the name Norwegian diaspora. Sharktopus talk 04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The AFD has an RFC for both Swedish diaspora and Norwegian diaspora.
— Chacha gurl B ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep It pretty much needs a rename. There just is not enough scholarly use of the title as it currently exists. And it is going to be pretty hard to come up with a name that isn't 10 words long. But the subject is almost empirically observable to be notable, and not just part of the emigration to the USA, either, but from as far back as the Viking expansion and the Swedish Empire. And also, the current title would make a good redirect, so killing it to remake the article later under a new name does not make sense either.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company (do we cover every opal company with its own boutique?). Speedy declined, presumably on the basis of the newspaper cites. Miracle Pen ( talk) 21:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nom here. lifebaka ++ 20:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't find any claims of notability from reliable sources. The film's creator does not appear notable, either. ceran thor 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails the general notability guidelines. No reliable sources for verification. (Author contested prod) OSborn arf contribs. 20:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Although I disagree with the statement at the bottom that there is an "overwhelming" consensus, (not a vote and all that) there is a rough consensus to keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Aside from the fact that the article has been tagged as referenceless since March 2008 (that's 3 years), I don't believe there is any reason whatsoever to have an article which is a CONTENT FORK of the original Golden Globe awards article. The sole difference is that this article is based on all the black nominees and I find that highly trivial and unnecessary. All the black nominees are listed in their awards' appropriate article. There is no need to single them out here. Feed back ☎ 20:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Feed back ☎ 20:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be notable, no g/news hits. No reliable sources to verify with. Being used as spam by a user with an apparent COI. OSborn arf contribs. 18:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:CRYSTAL The Bushranger One ping only 19:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable information. I don't consider the references given to be reliable sources, and the majority of the information presented is speculation or hearsay. I'm not saying there won't be a Windows 8 -- there probably will be (though potentially with a different name). But we simply don't have enough information right now to make a reasonable article out of it. This is precisely what WP:CRYSTAL talks about. Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 16:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was PNG'd (delete). The Bushranger One ping only 19:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This article was originally written by someone apparently trying to plug Volvo's diplomatic sales (a more directly promotional article was removed). Now that I've removed the Volvo stuff from this one, what's left asserts no real notability and is unsourced, and I wonder if there's anything of encyclopedic importance here at all - there are lots of "discount sales" schemes for all sort of customers all over the place. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if notability established in the future. The Bushranger One ping only 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
unreferenced, orphaned, original research. 2nd'd prod challenged by article creator. RadioFan ( talk) 12:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable amateur football club playing only in the second highest amateur league. Travelbird ( talk) 12:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep all. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
It is not a notable league. Since this is a league within the Philippines, and having done a check, there is no league system/pyramid in the coutnry and therefore isn't the top flight and is just an 'isolated' league. It's also not overseen/governed by a recognized FA. Banana Fingers ( talk) 11:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N. This team has played twice ever, in an unnotable cup competition. Stu.W UK ( talk) 11:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus seems to lean toward the notion that the ship isn't quite there yet in terms of notability. Juliancolton ( talk) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD (as Le pietre yacht). Fails WP:GNG. It's just someone's yacht. It came third in a non-notable race. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about your yacht, however nice it is. Also nominating Le pietre yacht - duplicate of this page. Shirt58 ( talk) 09:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The race IS notable and quite popular with those who know about wooden gulets. There is no page about it in wiki yet, but I am sure it will be here soon. On Wikipedia there are pages about other yachts and building companies, like Perini Navi or Aegean Yacht or Cobra yacht and many many others. If you intend to remove this page please remove similar pages as well. I agree that page Le pietre yacht is duplicated, it can be removed. But not this Le Pietre (yacht). 35m vessel is not someone's pet or house, it is a big yacht that deserves it's place in the yacht's list. The page is written according to all wiki's recommendations for writing about yachts Natalia Spatar ( talk) 10:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was already deleted. Some Wiki Editor ( talk) 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Proposed name for a data storage space unit. Has not been widely accepted, nor is there any machine available with such amount of data space. The article was speedily deleted twice on request by other editors - I thought I'd give this an AfD to settle the matter. Travelbird ( talk) 09:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Coach of a non-professional team, only coverage in a local newspaper and college related source. Travelbird ( talk) 09:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete - G4 recreation of an article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Order of Druids and, in any event, A7 -- B ( talk) 01:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
A search didn't show up evidence of notability. Dougweller ( talk) 09:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:MADEUP The Bushranger One ping only 19:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced neologisms. Contested prod by article creator. Zachlipton ( talk) 08:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Juliancolton ( talk) 23:06, 28 February 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}} . |
Fairly well written article about a candidate for political office, however the main purpose of the article seems to be to promote this person. As a candidate for a major party he gets some local news coverage, however if not elected his long term notability is in serious doubt. Should be re-added only if and when this person actually is elected. Travelbird ( talk) 08:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 19:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Claims to be famous in Hong Kong. Google turns up nothing but a linkedin/facebook/blogs. This is quite possibly self-promotion. Travelbird ( talk) 08:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Juliancolton ( talk) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Association football player who has not played for a fully professional club. He has only played on loan in the semi-professional Scottish Second Division. Does not meet WP:N or WP:NFOOTY guidelines. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 07:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Juliancolton ( talk) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Association football player who has not played for a fully professional club. He has only played on loan in the semi-professional Scottish Second Division. Does not meet WP:N or WP:NFOOTY guidelines. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 07:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Juliancolton ( talk) 23:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Association football player who has not played for a fully professional club. He has only played (on loan) in the semi-professional Scottish Second Division. Does not meet WP:N or WP:NFOOTY guidelines. Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 07:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if reliable sources can be found. The Bushranger One ping only 18:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The article asserts notability and, if verifiable, would be notable. But it provides absolutely no way to verify these events (not that I doubt it, per se; it's that the article, as written, makes it impossible to verify), and provides insufficient context. I realize that deletion is not a substitute to cleanup, but in this case, cleanup is impossible, and the article as written is impossible to salvage. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 06:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Renaming, if desired, can be done through the usual methods. The Bushranger One ping only 18:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This might be a community, in which case it, like all communities, will be notable -- but it might be just an estate, in which case it probably is not. The only avail ref is compatible with either interpretation. The lack of geographic references--or at least lack of any I can locate-- implies it may be just an estate or house. Sending it here from Prod to make sure it gets a visible discussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 18:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Actor does not meet WP:N criteria. Only reference is IMDB (not a reliable source in and of itself anyway), but a look at his IMDB page shows no credits, only a self-submitted resume. Credits are mostly as a Technical Advisor and for minor roles "police officer," "soldier," "thief." Google searches aren't turning up much that isn't self-published/promotional, certainly not substantial coverage in reliable sources as is required. Zachlipton ( talk) 05:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I had redirected this unreferenced BLP of a non-notable artist to his former employer, but this was reverted without discussion. Artist has two albums, neither of which seem to have charted or to otherwise have generated any coverage.
A Google News search indicates that we are not dealing with an artist here is notable by our standards. Note: he has two albums with a company that has a Wikipedia article, Suburban Noize Records, but that's hardly an impressive outfit, in my opinion. Drmies ( talk) 05:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
- Diversity8 ( talk) 09:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The two linked sites we then have to look at are newstimes.com and celebstoner.com. The newstime.com interview, here, with band members, (sans Pakelika), mentions Pakelika. Unfortunately, “where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves”, this self-referencing cannot be used as independent evidence.
The celebstoner article, here, is “Pakelika's exclusive blog about what's been going on”. Again the subject talks about himself, and again self-referencing rules-out the source as independent evidence.
None of the above links provide disinterested viable reference and should be disreguarded as proof of such.
User:Dream Focus’s celebstoner link, here, also has parts where Pakelika self-references. Where he doesn’t, the web site declares, under the heading of "Pakelika for President!": “Pakelika, the Kottonmouth Kings’ "Visual Assassin," has announced his entry into the 2008 presidential campaign. The Top CelebStoner joins TV talk-show host Stephen Colbert and actor Fred Thompson as celebrity candidates. The 6-for-7 Pakelika, who wears a mask on stage while dancing robotically to the band's hip-hop/punk-rock music and puffing from a vaporizer...” . Is there an independent viable source to show that this talk show espisode took place on Network TV? - I can't find it, but others might have better luck. My view on this is that celebstoner.com is biased, being a web site unambiguously promoting the use of a certain drug, reviewing a user of the same drug.
Proposal if article is to be saved: All in-line cites to the non-viable sources would be removed, effectively all in-line cites in the article. Any links that exist now to be under External links, but not those existing that run against Wikipedia:External links protocol, see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. The intro sentence and Biography section, where nothing is evidenced, removed totally, and replaced with a simple standard intro sentence - name, where born, birth name, and very brief unbiased description. A Career Section would provide any verified information if there is enough of it, but no unsupported fancruft, blogese, promotion, quotes, hyberbole or original research. The Pakelika for President section would go, being completely unreferenced text. Mention of his candidacy for President can be made - there will be a few links there. Effectively, to save this article, it would need to be reduced to a stub. But I still think Delete.
However, see Wikipedia:Notability (music) – it is all that matters here for a judgement on deletion. Acabashi ( talk) 20:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per G7 by Stephen ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Subject is not sufficiently
notable and article lacks
reliable sources. The article is self-sourced or sourced via SEO channels of promotion. Advertising. Works are self-published.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕)) 05:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete Salting it has been proposed, since this was recreated after a 2008 deletion. If re-re-created, that option should be considered. Mandsford 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The only things that have changed since the previous AfD are his two years at Curzon Ashton and Salford City, both of the Northern Premier League Division One North, four divisions below England's lowest wholly professional league. The phrase "Giggs works as a truck driver at Trafford Park when not playing for or managing the club" gives useful context for those unfamiliar with the English football system. Looking at the sources used, it's quite clear that the Mail, BBC and to an extent Manchester Evening News coverage is primarily due to the fact that Rhodri is the brother of Ryan ( WP:NOTINHERITED). The rest of the sources exist exclusively to cover non-league football, which means they are not worthy of consideration when deciding whether Rhodri meets the GNG.
I considered speedy-ing under CSD G4. But at least one established editor believes that he merits an article, so I have taken it here for wider discussion. — W F C— 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — W F C— 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Auburn Tigers#Toomer's Trees poisoned. Mandsford 20:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Biography of a person known for a single event, does not meet guidelines for inclusion RadioFan ( talk) 03:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per G11 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This appears to be an advertisement for a non-notable cricket league. Steven 2142 ( talk) 03:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Mandsford 20:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. nothing in gnews [29]. and IMDB reveals a very limited career. [30]. insufficient info to establish any major roles. LibStar ( talk) 08:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. A good deal of work has been done on the article to address the original objections about it being merely a dictionary definition. Sourcing of the entries, hopefully, will follow, and some "citation needed" tags are in order. Mandsford 20:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is a dictionary definition that has not evolved beyond that in 3 years. Better for wiktionary. c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 06:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Concern about WP:CREEP in WP:GAMECRUFT may be valid, but I don't think a convincing case can be made that the "random monster you raise/kill for XP" lists, that only state "monster X has ability Y and costs Z", are comparable to a backhand or to Alekhine's Defense. Consensus can change, but it shows no signs of having changed here. The Bushranger One ping only 18:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Before anyone says WP:OTHERCRAP exists like this for other video games that involve collecting monsters... keep in mind that this is pretty much the same as having a List of Pogs. Yes. I realize that there are games where the entire point of it is to collect things, be it pogs, or monsters, or tiny coins. But Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. We should explain how and why the collection matters in the main game article, but should not cross over into game guide territory by offering a complete list of every item you collect in order to obtain victory. Shooterwalker ( talk) 03:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Shooterwalker ( talk) 05:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:NOT#PLOT The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This topic fails WP:N due to a lack of third party sources. Third party sources exist for the novel itself. But there's no basis in references for creating a WP:CONTENTFORK of For Want of a Nail (novel) that focuses entirely on plot, especially since Wikipedia is not just plot summaries (see: WP:NOT#PLOT). Shooterwalker ( talk) 02:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Guoguo12 --Talk-- 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Extremely minor Rugby player (only four games) with not enough significant reliable secondary source coverage to meet notability Sadads ( talk) 01:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but only one !voter has addressed the issue of sourcing. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
at first I thought it just needed a rewrite, but looking at the refs I don't think it passes NN Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO and serious WP:COI. Article was created by the PR/sales person (Anne-Laure Buffard Albuffard ( talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than to promote Galerie Nathalie Obadia. This is one Part of a long history of Spamming and promotion by this individual on Wikipedia, see also - Spam case. Self-promotion and marketing gimmicks are NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 ( talk) 16:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Autobiographical, non-notable, very resume-like BurtAlert ( talk) 02:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software product. I am unable to find any independent secondary sources that discuss this video game. VQuakr ( talk) 02:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Drmies, if you want to knock this around some more let me know and I'll be glad to reopen it (or you can renominate it at your leasure). Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
It exists, but it is not notable: these results do not indicate awards having been won, discussion having taken place, or anyone writing for a reliable source having paid attention to the book. Drmies ( talk) 04:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:NEO The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Term presented by WP in a sense that is found only handful of hardly cited articles. The term is more commonly found in a generic sense, except in material related to "Mr. Vetro" and AgentSheets. -- bala biot 14:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There's a consensus here that the subject, while failing WP:NFOOTBALL does pass WP:GNG. However, for future AFDs, some pointers to these sources, if online, would be helpful. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, reason given was; "5 different sources from the BBC and Evening Standard are significant sources". Footballer clearly fails WP:FOOTYN as he has never played at a fully-professional or full international level of football. The sources provided are not enough to pass WP:GNG, there are a couple of trivial articles about Wingrove personally but the others fail WP:NTEMP as they are merely passing references of name-checks in match reports. -- Jimbo [online] 20:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
NOTE: The author of the article was not informed of this discussion by the nominator. I have now informed the author. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. If an article on the Virginia paintball case existed, then the result would be to merge this into that article per WP:BLP1E. Barring that, there is not much that can be done based on this AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP1E. While the article may look impressive, most of the sources are primary in nature - I have been unable to find evidence that he reaches the standard required for a BLP covered for a single set of events. Ironholds ( talk) 22:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N. Google news search returns no hits and google search returns the organization's site and wiki mirrors. Also nominating South Moluccas national football team. They have only ever played at this tournament. I initially turned their page into a redirect to UNPO Cup thinking I'd find some notability for the tournament, but didn't. I reverted the team's article back to help discussion. Stu.W UK ( talk) 01:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 04:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Seems like a well written article, but after further research, I believe that it is simply a promotion for the author's website. The only sources in the article are to the author's site, and it is based heavily on his work. Pax85 ( talk) 05:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fanfiction; fails WP:WEB. I understand this may be one of the most well-known pieces of fanfiction - certainly, it seems to be the only one with a Wikipedia article - but nonetheless I don't believe it passes our inclusion guidelines. While it has been mentioned in reliable sources, the only coverage is trivial: see [39], [40] and [41]. It is also apparently included in the documentary Ringers: Lord of the Fans, but I don't think that's enough for notability. Currently, it has a brief mention in the Lord of the Rings article; that seems fine, but there isn't enough coverage to justify a separate article. (I note it was previously kept at AfD, but that was back in 2005, and our standards have changed a lot since then.) Robofish ( talk) 01:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ironholds ( talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC) reply
It was literally only used at that one Scott Brown rally, and all coverage relates to that. The rest seems to be a possible advertisement for this tea party flag company. There has been no notable use, or even use as far as I can tell, outside of this one event. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
*Merge, per WikiCopter, into
American flag or
Betsy Ross flag. Per nom., not notable enough to warrant its own article.--
JayJasper (
talk) 04:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
Administrator's note: I am reopening the debate for further comments, based on the outcome of my own deletion review. Mandsford 20:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Can't PROD as one was removed in 2009. Fails to meet WP:V or WP:N. The only link is dead and that was to a forum anyway. Stu.W UK ( talk) 00:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete ( G7) by Athaenara. Non-admin closure -- Pgallert ( talk) 15:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This biographical article on an author does not appear to meet the applicable criteria for notability. I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources about this person. VQuakr ( talk) 00:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 00:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band. References are to youtube and blogs, nothing reliable. Strong promotional tone and admitted COI as well. VQuakr ( talk) 00:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply