< 7 February | 9 February > |
---|
The result was Speedy close Page is a redirect, listing at Redirects for Discussion. -- Danger ( talk) 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
"Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma" article already exists... This is misspelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homiesiman ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 8 February 2011
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. [1]. too minor to merit an article. LibStar ( talk) 23:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Dalonte Hill, delete the others.. Stifle ( talk) 09:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NSPORTS. Assistant coaches who have never been head coaches are rarely notable, and there doesn't seem to be an exception for him. Please note that being a head coach at a community college doesn't count. Jrcla2 ( talk) 23:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. arguments made to keep were adequately countered, article creator agrees to delete J04n( talk page) 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Yet another non-notable person, a former president of a notable football club. IMHO that doesn't really provide notability by extension. There isn't a single non-primary source in the article, so it's doubtful under WP:BLP rules, too. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 22:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unreferenced BLP J04n( talk page) 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 18:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a speculative list. Well over 98% of the titles here don't even have release dates. In point of fact, the handheld gaming console itself has yet to be released, but will be soon. Shouldn't we delete this until it can be something more than a list chock full of speculation and "TBA"s? Sriramachandran V. ( talk) 20:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Sriramachandran V. ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable retired minor league baseball player. He last played in 2008 and did not put up any numbers that in themselves would merit an article. Alex ( talk) 20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Questionable notability, insufficient material to demonstrate WP:NOTE. Alan the Roving Ambassador ( talk) 20:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If anybody can find anything else on these guys let me know. I'll be glad to userfy or incubate. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BAND, no reliable sources to establish notability. Google search turns up no significant coverage, the fact they 'shared a stage' with other more notable acts does not make them inherently notable. Acather96 ( talk) 19:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was WITHDRAWN. Nom's issues will be addressed through normal article editing and talk page discussion. postdlf ( talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, non-notable neologism. Eldamorie ( talk) 19:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
You've got to be kidding me. This article has existed since 2004, and in all that time has not had one single reference?
OK, there are two references in this long article - one is to an internet forum post (O paragon of scholarly erudition!) and the other is for a quote from H. P. Lovecraft, whose views on matters of human sexuality carry as much weight as those of my next-door neighbor.
It's not just that the article consists entirely of a collection of rank speculation, flat-out invention, and random woolgathering. If there was such a thing as "Antisexualism", we could burn it down to a stub and start over. And if the article isn't deleted I propose to remove all the unsourced material (==all the material) and burn it down to a one-sentence stub. But what would the stub say? "Antisexualism refers to the ideology of opposing sex and the social movement encompassing this ideology" I guess - but there isn't even a WP:RS reference for that.
There is no such thing as "Antisexualism" in any notable, organized (or even unorganized) form. If there were, there would be reliable sources showing that. But there aren't. The article has existed for seven years. That's long enough to find a reference, I think. (I mean, is anyone against sex? Sure there are groups of celibates - monks, Manichaen elect, Shakers, asexuals etc. - but they aren't against sex. They just don't have sex themselves, which is entirely different thing altogether. The only description in the article of an organization which is actually against sex is from 1984, which is... fiction.
As alternative to deletion, the article could be moved someplace where it could serve as a "what not to do" example of Wikipedia:Original Research. But there is no place for this in article space. Herostratus ( talk) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb ( talk) 17:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
No doubt. I saw that draft. It made my English teacher synapses shrivel. Look, I also cut his bio down to the minimum if you want to look at that. I'm going to sleep. Freelance-writer-editor ( talk) 05:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I edit for a third party, (and ghostwrite.) Frank contacted this third party and asked me if I would edit the article because he had been told it was biased. (It was.) Does this really matter? I have no connection with the movie, the production company, or any one involved with the movie. I have done some writing and editing for a friend of the producer. Apparently bias is not the only issue. Freelance-writer-editor ( talk) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Re: moving to a user space until it is done...Freelance-writer says SHE would definitely agree with that. Much better than having to save it elsewhere and repost it and start from scratch again. Freelance-writer-editor ( talk) 18:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Can this please go to a page where I can work on it until it is released or has had adequate press? There are other individuals involved with the film who could be researched as well as the Donna background story, which actually may be a disambiguation. Freelance-writer-editor ( talk) 06:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Completely
non-notable
neologism, in addition to being
original research.
Reaper Eternal (
talk) 17:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Article is sourced, and thus no longer original research. Also, sufficient sources have been added to pass
WP:GNG.
Reaper Eternal (
talk) 18:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced dictionary definition. Perhaps someone can identify a merger target, but I can't see why this should be a standalone article. Biker Biker ( talk) 17:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Default is therefore keep; due to the poor structure at the debate there is liberty to relist in a month or two if there is no improvement. Stifle ( talk) 09:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG. there is nothing in gnews. and gbooks only has 3 hits [10] 1 of which merely confirms this is an arts organisation. LibStar ( talk) 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
* Keep. Can
User:LibStar please point me to the actual Wiki guidelines that state that a subject is not 'notable' because there are no, or only a few, 'hits' about it on Google? Is finding 'hits' on Google the only criteria for 'notability'? The article lists independent, secondary sources, published by reputable organizations,and the publications have ISBN numbers — so are easily 'verifiable' by someone who is diligent. In other words, can you provide evidence for you categoric claim that the article "fails WP:ORG". Also, why didn't you bother to notify me of your deletion tag? It is generally considered (
WP:AFD) courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. --
Pkravchenko (
talk) 03:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
I cite WP:PROVEIT and would question every statement in the article in the absence of inline citations even page numbers of offline sources. LibStar ( talk) 06:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I haven't found evidence of notability hence the nomination, simple. LibStar ( talk) 07:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
as per WP:BURDEN it's incumbent on those wanting to keep any statement/article. LibStar ( talk) 07:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
"questioning the veracity of statements in the article" is permitted under WP:BURDEN given that there are no inline citations, Pkravchenko, why the reluctance to add inline citations despite requests? also you avoided my other question, are you a member of this society or have a connection to it? LibStar ( talk) 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
given the lack of other sources that i cannot find, it would be reasonable to expect at least some citation to establish veracity of information in article. the continual refusal of the article creator/Society President to provide any citations says it all. this article is full of original research as far as I'm concerned. LibStar ( talk) 00:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet criteria listed in WP:BAND. tedder ( talk) 16:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This storm event appears to be the creation of a facebook group. Whilst there has been bad weather in the United Kingdom in the period covered, there is no indication that official meteorological agencies or other reliable sources have treated this as a single named storm. Delete. Jeremy ( talk) 15:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Oppose - Why doesn't anyone listen? If you looked at the page when it was created, it said the GBMA was an official (but small) meteorological agency.
GeorgeGriffiths (
talk) 17:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
Keep I don't see a reason why this page should be deleted. If people look at Google Earth (With Weather settings on) you'll see that the storm was real. Also, a tiny space such as that on the
European Windstorm page could not cover what can be covered in this article — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tpxpress (
talk •
contribs) 8 February 2011
It's a Facebook group surrently, and it's the GBMA
Plus there might be no coverage as
European Windstorms are not recognised as real by many people, hence the Keep in my previous post
Tpxpress (
talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
*Comment This is laughable. Saying this storm - WITH 131MPH WINDS AND CAUSING MORE THAN 10 MILLION POUNDS OF DAMAGE - is not notable is like saying Cyclone Yasi is not notable. In fact, if this is being called not notable, Yasi can't be, either. So I'll go delete that, hmmm? It'll mean there's one less unneeded trashy article on Wikipedia.
GeorgeGriffiths (
talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
{{
citation needed}}
tag.
Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi has citations to substantiate over USD 2 billion.
[1]
Tim PF (
talk) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
reply{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
The above {{
reflist}}
added to illustrate what a damages citation looks like.
Tim PF (
talk)
{{
citation needed}}
tags without justification - (see
User talk:GeorgeGriffiths).The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
An article on a functionary of the Punjab Bar Council, no independent sources. Sherry334 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rajput334 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have created a series of articles on functionaries within the Punjab Bar Council, suggesting WP:COI, but the main issue here is lack of reliable independent sources or any objective claim to notability. Guy ( Help!) 15:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
An article on a functionary of the Punjab Bar Council, no independent sources. Sherry334 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rajput334 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have created a series of articles on functionaries within the Punjab Bar Council, suggesting WP:COI, but the main issue here is lack of reliable independent sources or any objective claim to notability. Guy ( Help!) 15:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully professional league. He has apparently been called to the Estonian national team, but never actually played (as required by WP:NSPORT). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep but move somewhere. Discussion of exactly where can and should continue on the talk page. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Uh, what should we do with this article? It doesn't seem to be notable or encyclopedic enough to stand on its own as an article, and yet the material is substantially important that it should probably be somewhere — but the Jay Chou article is already a bit too long to accommodate a merger back there. I want some opinions here on whether it should be deleted or not. As for my own opinion, mild delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 18:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unable to confirm details on this writer online, although someone with access to resources about Bengali literature may be able to help. Other people have the same name. http://southasianlitfest.com/Artists/siddhartha-bose/ appears to be about a different writer. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable that was recreated twice after two speedies. delete. UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Seems to be too marginal for speedy, so going for a wider audience. (I subscribe to the AfDiscussion theory...) UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Due to lack of contribution. There is therefore no prejudice against immediate renomination. Stifle ( talk) 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:RS and is probably original research. Links to page hint that an article with the same name was deleted in 2006 through proposed deletion, proposed on or near February 24th 2006 (see What Links Here for Soku-no-Kumi -- avjn ( talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Previously redirected after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amran Baqur Mohammed Hawsawi, which didn't really focus on the article but just on the duplication of contents. However, there are no independent sources for this article (the two sources given don't mention Hawsawi at all!). So it fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Looking for other sources, I found nothing through Google Books [18] [19] or Google News Archives [20] [21]. Fram ( talk) 10:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Previously kept in 2007 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab. On reviewing, it becomes clear that there is at most one independent (i.e. not US Govt. or other party in the judicial process) source for this person which gives more than a passing mention or than a simple reprint of government documents. This document gives a few statements by Wahab as examples of experiences of Guantanamo detainees. No real information about who he is, no real attention to him presonally, is given here though. The article in the Yemen Observer [22] is a passing mention only. Looking through Google, Google News Archives, and Google Books (with different variations of the name) didn't return other significant hits. E.g. the actual title of the article returns 45 distinct Google hits [23], 4 Google News hits [24], and 6 Google Books hits of which five are republished Wikipedia content [25]. Fram ( talk) 09:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Page fork. UtherSRG (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I cannot find any significant third-party coverage to establish the notability of this building. The sources in the article are all self-published, and so it fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:N, and WP:V. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
When I did a Google search, I could not find any significant third-party coverage to establish the notability of this event, so it appears that it is not notable outside of the hacker community. If reliable sources (those outside of the community, and not linked to it) are found and added to the article, then I will withdraw the nomination.
As it stands now, of the three links in the article, one is a mailing list, the other is the Shmoo website, and the one story link only briefly mentions the convention in passing. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. A copy of the page history is available at User:Timotheus Canens/Sandbox if needed for attribution of the merge - see WP:MAD. T. Canens ( talk) 01:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Hardly ranks highly in terms of sporting scandals. Have already merged the relevant information into Tana Umaga and Chris Masoe after no responses to a merge suggestion. Was going to redirect, but think it is unlikely to be used as a search term. AIRcorn (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment I thought this would be a no brainer and did not put in enough information about why I think it should be deleted. My bad. Basically I am questioning the enduring notability of the event. Tana Umaga is more likely to be remembered for his tackle on Brian O'Driscol than this incident, which the article even states was blown out of proportion. The Aussies making fun of the All Blacks in a video clip and a third place on a sports broadcasters nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment don't make it particularly notable to my mind. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Product Description
Presenting wonderful examples of the political correctness gone absurd, this collection reflects on cases of authority who take themselves too seriously. From the army to city councils, this title features true and amusing blunders in political correctness.
Comment (1) WP:NOTNEWS only applies to single events. (2) Books trump WP:NOTNEWS because they are not news. The policy that applies is WP:Notability (events), "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else."
What we have here is six events, where events (2) through (6) were triggered by the first:
Each of these six has claim to enduring notability. But (1), (3), and (6) have stood the test of time. Given that the handbag auction received prominent placement in the 2010 book, and the apparent impact on NZ society as it transpired, it is probably the most notable. Note that only the first of these six events is a sports event. Unscintillating ( talk) 06:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Atmoz ( talk) 17:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a completely made up term to describe a collection of unrelated mountain ranges in southern Albania ( Gramos, Nemercke, etc...). Term has never been used by anyone in English except article creator, and is not in use in any of the literature. Athenean ( talk) 07:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Atmoz ( talk) 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Company of EXTREMELY questionable notability, references are either "not found" pages, self references, or do not mention the article subject in any way, shape or form. Wuh Wuz Dat 06:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails notability requirements as a company or organization Yaksar (let's chat) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge all to List of Oz characters. T. Canens ( talk) 01:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:GNG. We're not Oz Wikia, we don't need articles on every Oz character who was in one chapter of one book, especially if they're stubs and are only referenced by Oz compendia
I am also nominating the following other articles:
Note that I am only nominating ones that I feel to be very definitely non-notable; you may want to consider others as well Purple backpack89 05:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Atmoz ( talk) 16:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This entire topic should be moved to a role-playing wiki and removed from here (with the possible exception of a short summary) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The consensus is to keep this article but the nominator is right. Currently this article is nothing more then a dicdef. If it isn't expanded I suspect we will be back here very soon. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NOTDICDEF Yaksar (let's chat) 02:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 06:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:CORP. the awards lack national recognition. still lacks third party coverage. [42]. LibStar ( talk) 02:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
No indication this person meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Prod was contested by IP. Still not a notable song. Fixer23 ( talk) 11:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Ryan has shot down the rumor that the album will be released exclusively by Tesco at all and that there is no deal to release his album at the moment. Therefore, currently there is only one ref that confirmed an inital October 2010 release date. No tracklisting or production information just some unsourced information about a fan petition. In any case, an article can be created when there is actually real information available. There are next to no relaible sources on this album online. Fixer23 ( talk) 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Delete, per nomination, this is too much of a crystal ball. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to DHT (band). Stifle ( talk) 09:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
No notable solo activity outside of their group. Fixer23 ( talk) 03:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Online game. No evidence of notability. The only references are blogs, one of which advertizes itself as being a reference for PC online gaming since, get this, 1873. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 01:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Continued discussion will not change the fact that adequate sources to meet WP:GNG have not been found. lifebaka ++ 16:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Prolific yet otherwise unremarkable author. Fails WP:GNG. A Google news search turned up a few mentions as owner of restored hall in Suffolk, but certainly no mention of their "grand unified theory" of history. Almost all sources used are the author's own works. From the history of the article, and related articles on author's poems, a number of "single purpose accounts" seem to be associated with this BLP. In particular
User:Sanrac1959 has self-identified as Hagger's personal assistant.
Delicious carbuncle (
talk) 22:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
“At O Books we do not claim to be a major publisher. The imprint only started in 2004. But the idea that we are only a step above a vanity publisher is absurd, and potentially damaging to us. Go to ‘About us’ on the website for comments from the trade, and reputable sources like The Bookseller, the main trade magazine in the UK.
We have published some poetry titles that we do not see as commercial, where the author or a university or an organization might make a contribution to the production costs. Three years ago (when that section of the website was written) that might have amounted to 1% or so of our list. Now it amounts to a small fraction of that, in terms of numbers of titles and income. Probably far less than most independent publishers, particularly in the area of academic publishing and poetry. We just happen to be open about it.
It’s not my place to comment on the tone of the entry, but I can assure the administrators that we publish Nicholas Hagger on his merit and his sales. He has also been published by other independent publishers like Watkins. His titles get excellent endorsements and reviews, from serious people, prominent in the fields of art and philosophy. A sample review from one of the latest works of his we’ve published, The New Philosophy of Universalism:
In this magisterial work Nicholas Hagger unites the rational and intuitive strands of Western philosophy in the light of the latest findings from physics, cosmology, biology, ecology and psychology. His in-depth exposition of these sciences and their philosophical implications is breathtaking in scope and detail and fully justifies his declaration of a Metaphysical Revolution, which also has profound consequences for our understanding of world affairs. This is one of the most important philosophical books to appear since Whitehead’s ‘Process and Reality’ eighty years ago and deserves the widest possible readership. A stupendous achievement. David Lorimer, Programme Director, Scientific and Medical Network
Of course others will disagree. But I can’t see this factor as reason for deleting the entry (rather than revising it if necessary). The comment that Nicholas Hagger is a ‘wealthy self promoter’ is irrelevant. I have no idea how wealthy he is. But when did having money mean you weren’t able to write? How many other authors would that now exclude? And few authors today are not engaged in promotion of some kind. Nicholas Hagger has no financial stake or connection with, or ownership of, or shares in, O Books (one of several imprints in John Hunt Publishing Ltd, to which the same applies), and O Books has no connection with Oak-Tree Books. He is one of 700 or so authors we currently have on the website, and treated on the same basis as all the others.
John Hunt, Owner, John Hunt Publishing Ltd, O Books and other imprints.
O-Books www.o-books.net, Zero Books www.zero-books.net, Circle Books www.circle-books.net.”
Posted at the request of John Hunt/O Books by Sanrac1959 ( talk) 12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Did SmartSE have a look, as suggested, at the WP article on Elizabeth Gray Vining, which is almost exclusively about her appointment as tutor by the Japanese Imperial Household for three years, and assess the degree of notability conferred by Hagger’s appointment by the Japanese Imperial Household as tutor to Prince Hitachi for a similar length of time? The book on Scargill was in two parts: sayings and analysis. There are review articles about this book, but I was responding to the inability of many to find articles by Hagger or about Hagger’s pre-internet work on the internet, and establishing that it exists. The images have verified the sources.
WP:BASIC holds that multiple independent sources may be combined, and a combination of the articles about Hagger’s books through interviews at Otley Hall and about his role in the miners’ strike, added to his tutoring of Prince Hitachi, the deleted in-depth studies by Sebastian Barker and Bennett Freeman, and the deleted letter by Ted Hughes, which constitutes a valid secondary source now it has been published in The Letters of Ted Hughes, collectively make a case for a degree of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanrac1959 ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
No notability established or asserted. No inline citations; no independent source attesting to notability by wp:GNG. Article was prodded before. Article was included in multi-article AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) which was closed without deletion of any, but with no judgement on individual article's merits. (Note: article was since moved from St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish, Middletown to current "St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut)" name.) do ncr am 06:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Parishes and churches notability. -- WlaKom ( talk) 11:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
To Doncram. Do you really understand what does the Parish mean? See again Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Parishes and churches notability. So far you didn't provide any substantive arguments. This article has sources, is about historical organization (100 year old parish in U.S. is very historical) and the article doesn't have to be long. Tell me. What do you want to achieve? The discussion about the AFD related to parish/church has been closed until we find criteria. How long do you want to continue this unproductive discussion? -- WlaKom ( talk) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Reminder again and again. "the Knights of Columbus group affiliated with the church" - wrong. affiliated with the parish. Orlady, how many times I have to remind you about it. This discussion is about Roman Catholic Parish in Middletown, CT. They could have a meeting in the church but the group includes parishioners not bells or windows. Look like you try to discuss about the issue you don't have a clue what are you taking about. If I don't know too much about the football, I never write the word on the football forum. Sorry for this comment.-- WlaKom ( talk) 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Down for Life (film) is the only notable film he's had a major role in, as a unit producer (not executive producer). The Golden Eagle award link goes to a Russian award, which is not what the article says he won; that award and the associated organizatino are not notable either. Appear to be multiple WP:SPA account involved with promotional aspects of this and other articles (e.g. [66], [67], [68]). OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced self-advertisement for a non-notable organization. Damiens.rf 17:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu ( talk) 20:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The 2 participants in this discussion have convinced me that the subject is nost likely notable but for a BLP there's not enough participation for a "keep" close. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. No fewer than six of his claimed books are from notorious vanity press iUniverse--that means that he has opened his checkbook six times in order to pay money to pose as a published author. Obviously, per WP:SPS, those titles cannot be used as WP:RS to support WP:N or WP:CREATIVE. Qworty ( talk) 23:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP since April 2010. Although there are assertions of notability in the article, it completely fails WP:V All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per onsensus here that "Yale Series of Younger Poets" award confers notability. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 06:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Concerns over WP:N Levinge ( talk) 17:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 18:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:PORNBIO, and no significant independent coverage found. Epbr123 ( talk) 11:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Wolfotwitz has disingenously conflated me (former Magpie1892) with the fixed IP above. A summary checkuser would show no connection but that wouldn't make for such acompelling case for our friend HW. Further, I had issues with HW looooooooong before the SPI (which, again, was not initiated by HW) so it's not accurate to base my problems with HW's erratic and arrogant editing with the aforementioned. Again, it's a nice distraction, but has no basis in truth. People are constantly complaining about Woloftwitz and the reasons why are all too evident - he's a liar and a boor. -- 85.237.211.209 ( talk) 10:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The question of whether someone meets WP:BIO is a matter of fact, to be determined by consensus in each case. The contributors are convinced that Mr. Kenny meets these requirements, and it is not for me to differ. Stifle ( talk) 09:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
non-notable subject MoyrossLADY ( talk) 01:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be written by the subject.
The subject appears to be a journalist and author. He writes a weekly column for an Irish sunday newspaper and has written three humorous Irish books (all ranking past the 1 millionth bestseller mark on Amazon).
He does not qualify for notability per WP:AUTHOR
He does not fulfil any of the following:
I don't mean to hurt the feelings of the subject but he appears to be just an average guy doing a job and non-notable. MoyrossLADY ( talk) 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep but probably merge. Discussion on how and where to merge should continue on the article talk page. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Edward F. Ricketts State Marine Conservation Area covers two marine reserves. This article is about only one of them. I don't think this article is being very useful at the moment. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable musician (fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO). This is a renomination based on poor voter turnout at previous, recently closed AfD. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Also of note:
Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 06:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Firefox browser extension. No non-trivial coverage. Small user base. WP:SPA. Damiens.rf 17:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
A non notable marial art organisation without sources to back up notabilty Dwanyewest ( talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable institution, lacks significant coverage from secondary reliable sources to assert notability. Prod was contested. — ξ xplicit 21:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Young minor league hockey player, and good luck to him, but little to point to notability. Does not make the current notability standard per WP:NHOCKEY of 100 games in a fully professional minor league. Geofth ( talk) 22:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged flagging notability issues since 2009. Joker264 ( talk) 08:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
< 7 February | 9 February > |
---|
The result was Speedy close Page is a redirect, listing at Redirects for Discussion. -- Danger ( talk) 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply
"Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma" article already exists... This is misspelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homiesiman ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 8 February 2011
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. [1]. too minor to merit an article. LibStar ( talk) 23:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Dalonte Hill, delete the others.. Stifle ( talk) 09:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NSPORTS. Assistant coaches who have never been head coaches are rarely notable, and there doesn't seem to be an exception for him. Please note that being a head coach at a community college doesn't count. Jrcla2 ( talk) 23:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. arguments made to keep were adequately countered, article creator agrees to delete J04n( talk page) 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Yet another non-notable person, a former president of a notable football club. IMHO that doesn't really provide notability by extension. There isn't a single non-primary source in the article, so it's doubtful under WP:BLP rules, too. Joy [shallot] ( talk) 22:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unreferenced BLP J04n( talk page) 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 18:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a speculative list. Well over 98% of the titles here don't even have release dates. In point of fact, the handheld gaming console itself has yet to be released, but will be soon. Shouldn't we delete this until it can be something more than a list chock full of speculation and "TBA"s? Sriramachandran V. ( talk) 20:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Sriramachandran V. ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable retired minor league baseball player. He last played in 2008 and did not put up any numbers that in themselves would merit an article. Alex ( talk) 20:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Questionable notability, insufficient material to demonstrate WP:NOTE. Alan the Roving Ambassador ( talk) 20:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If anybody can find anything else on these guys let me know. I'll be glad to userfy or incubate. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BAND, no reliable sources to establish notability. Google search turns up no significant coverage, the fact they 'shared a stage' with other more notable acts does not make them inherently notable. Acather96 ( talk) 19:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was WITHDRAWN. Nom's issues will be addressed through normal article editing and talk page discussion. postdlf ( talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, non-notable neologism. Eldamorie ( talk) 19:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
You've got to be kidding me. This article has existed since 2004, and in all that time has not had one single reference?
OK, there are two references in this long article - one is to an internet forum post (O paragon of scholarly erudition!) and the other is for a quote from H. P. Lovecraft, whose views on matters of human sexuality carry as much weight as those of my next-door neighbor.
It's not just that the article consists entirely of a collection of rank speculation, flat-out invention, and random woolgathering. If there was such a thing as "Antisexualism", we could burn it down to a stub and start over. And if the article isn't deleted I propose to remove all the unsourced material (==all the material) and burn it down to a one-sentence stub. But what would the stub say? "Antisexualism refers to the ideology of opposing sex and the social movement encompassing this ideology" I guess - but there isn't even a WP:RS reference for that.
There is no such thing as "Antisexualism" in any notable, organized (or even unorganized) form. If there were, there would be reliable sources showing that. But there aren't. The article has existed for seven years. That's long enough to find a reference, I think. (I mean, is anyone against sex? Sure there are groups of celibates - monks, Manichaen elect, Shakers, asexuals etc. - but they aren't against sex. They just don't have sex themselves, which is entirely different thing altogether. The only description in the article of an organization which is actually against sex is from 1984, which is... fiction.
As alternative to deletion, the article could be moved someplace where it could serve as a "what not to do" example of Wikipedia:Original Research. But there is no place for this in article space. Herostratus ( talk) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb ( talk) 17:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
No doubt. I saw that draft. It made my English teacher synapses shrivel. Look, I also cut his bio down to the minimum if you want to look at that. I'm going to sleep. Freelance-writer-editor ( talk) 05:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I edit for a third party, (and ghostwrite.) Frank contacted this third party and asked me if I would edit the article because he had been told it was biased. (It was.) Does this really matter? I have no connection with the movie, the production company, or any one involved with the movie. I have done some writing and editing for a friend of the producer. Apparently bias is not the only issue. Freelance-writer-editor ( talk) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Re: moving to a user space until it is done...Freelance-writer says SHE would definitely agree with that. Much better than having to save it elsewhere and repost it and start from scratch again. Freelance-writer-editor ( talk) 18:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Can this please go to a page where I can work on it until it is released or has had adequate press? There are other individuals involved with the film who could be researched as well as the Donna background story, which actually may be a disambiguation. Freelance-writer-editor ( talk) 06:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Completely
non-notable
neologism, in addition to being
original research.
Reaper Eternal (
talk) 17:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Article is sourced, and thus no longer original research. Also, sufficient sources have been added to pass
WP:GNG.
Reaper Eternal (
talk) 18:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced dictionary definition. Perhaps someone can identify a merger target, but I can't see why this should be a standalone article. Biker Biker ( talk) 17:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Default is therefore keep; due to the poor structure at the debate there is liberty to relist in a month or two if there is no improvement. Stifle ( talk) 09:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG. there is nothing in gnews. and gbooks only has 3 hits [10] 1 of which merely confirms this is an arts organisation. LibStar ( talk) 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
* Keep. Can
User:LibStar please point me to the actual Wiki guidelines that state that a subject is not 'notable' because there are no, or only a few, 'hits' about it on Google? Is finding 'hits' on Google the only criteria for 'notability'? The article lists independent, secondary sources, published by reputable organizations,and the publications have ISBN numbers — so are easily 'verifiable' by someone who is diligent. In other words, can you provide evidence for you categoric claim that the article "fails WP:ORG". Also, why didn't you bother to notify me of your deletion tag? It is generally considered (
WP:AFD) courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. --
Pkravchenko (
talk) 03:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
I cite WP:PROVEIT and would question every statement in the article in the absence of inline citations even page numbers of offline sources. LibStar ( talk) 06:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I haven't found evidence of notability hence the nomination, simple. LibStar ( talk) 07:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
as per WP:BURDEN it's incumbent on those wanting to keep any statement/article. LibStar ( talk) 07:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
"questioning the veracity of statements in the article" is permitted under WP:BURDEN given that there are no inline citations, Pkravchenko, why the reluctance to add inline citations despite requests? also you avoided my other question, are you a member of this society or have a connection to it? LibStar ( talk) 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
given the lack of other sources that i cannot find, it would be reasonable to expect at least some citation to establish veracity of information in article. the continual refusal of the article creator/Society President to provide any citations says it all. this article is full of original research as far as I'm concerned. LibStar ( talk) 00:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet criteria listed in WP:BAND. tedder ( talk) 16:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This storm event appears to be the creation of a facebook group. Whilst there has been bad weather in the United Kingdom in the period covered, there is no indication that official meteorological agencies or other reliable sources have treated this as a single named storm. Delete. Jeremy ( talk) 15:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Oppose - Why doesn't anyone listen? If you looked at the page when it was created, it said the GBMA was an official (but small) meteorological agency.
GeorgeGriffiths (
talk) 17:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
Keep I don't see a reason why this page should be deleted. If people look at Google Earth (With Weather settings on) you'll see that the storm was real. Also, a tiny space such as that on the
European Windstorm page could not cover what can be covered in this article — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tpxpress (
talk •
contribs) 8 February 2011
It's a Facebook group surrently, and it's the GBMA
Plus there might be no coverage as
European Windstorms are not recognised as real by many people, hence the Keep in my previous post
Tpxpress (
talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
*Comment This is laughable. Saying this storm - WITH 131MPH WINDS AND CAUSING MORE THAN 10 MILLION POUNDS OF DAMAGE - is not notable is like saying Cyclone Yasi is not notable. In fact, if this is being called not notable, Yasi can't be, either. So I'll go delete that, hmmm? It'll mean there's one less unneeded trashy article on Wikipedia.
GeorgeGriffiths (
talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
reply
{{
citation needed}}
tag.
Severe Tropical Cyclone Yasi has citations to substantiate over USD 2 billion.
[1]
Tim PF (
talk) 21:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
reply{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
The above {{
reflist}}
added to illustrate what a damages citation looks like.
Tim PF (
talk)
{{
citation needed}}
tags without justification - (see
User talk:GeorgeGriffiths).The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
An article on a functionary of the Punjab Bar Council, no independent sources. Sherry334 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rajput334 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have created a series of articles on functionaries within the Punjab Bar Council, suggesting WP:COI, but the main issue here is lack of reliable independent sources or any objective claim to notability. Guy ( Help!) 15:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
An article on a functionary of the Punjab Bar Council, no independent sources. Sherry334 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rajput334 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have created a series of articles on functionaries within the Punjab Bar Council, suggesting WP:COI, but the main issue here is lack of reliable independent sources or any objective claim to notability. Guy ( Help!) 15:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully professional league. He has apparently been called to the Estonian national team, but never actually played (as required by WP:NSPORT). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep but move somewhere. Discussion of exactly where can and should continue on the talk page. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Uh, what should we do with this article? It doesn't seem to be notable or encyclopedic enough to stand on its own as an article, and yet the material is substantially important that it should probably be somewhere — but the Jay Chou article is already a bit too long to accommodate a merger back there. I want some opinions here on whether it should be deleted or not. As for my own opinion, mild delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 18:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unable to confirm details on this writer online, although someone with access to resources about Bengali literature may be able to help. Other people have the same name. http://southasianlitfest.com/Artists/siddhartha-bose/ appears to be about a different writer. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable that was recreated twice after two speedies. delete. UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Seems to be too marginal for speedy, so going for a wider audience. (I subscribe to the AfDiscussion theory...) UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Due to lack of contribution. There is therefore no prejudice against immediate renomination. Stifle ( talk) 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:RS and is probably original research. Links to page hint that an article with the same name was deleted in 2006 through proposed deletion, proposed on or near February 24th 2006 (see What Links Here for Soku-no-Kumi -- avjn ( talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Previously redirected after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amran Baqur Mohammed Hawsawi, which didn't really focus on the article but just on the duplication of contents. However, there are no independent sources for this article (the two sources given don't mention Hawsawi at all!). So it fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Looking for other sources, I found nothing through Google Books [18] [19] or Google News Archives [20] [21]. Fram ( talk) 10:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Previously kept in 2007 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab. On reviewing, it becomes clear that there is at most one independent (i.e. not US Govt. or other party in the judicial process) source for this person which gives more than a passing mention or than a simple reprint of government documents. This document gives a few statements by Wahab as examples of experiences of Guantanamo detainees. No real information about who he is, no real attention to him presonally, is given here though. The article in the Yemen Observer [22] is a passing mention only. Looking through Google, Google News Archives, and Google Books (with different variations of the name) didn't return other significant hits. E.g. the actual title of the article returns 45 distinct Google hits [23], 4 Google News hits [24], and 6 Google Books hits of which five are republished Wikipedia content [25]. Fram ( talk) 09:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Page fork. UtherSRG (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I cannot find any significant third-party coverage to establish the notability of this building. The sources in the article are all self-published, and so it fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:N, and WP:V. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
When I did a Google search, I could not find any significant third-party coverage to establish the notability of this event, so it appears that it is not notable outside of the hacker community. If reliable sources (those outside of the community, and not linked to it) are found and added to the article, then I will withdraw the nomination.
As it stands now, of the three links in the article, one is a mailing list, the other is the Shmoo website, and the one story link only briefly mentions the convention in passing. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. A copy of the page history is available at User:Timotheus Canens/Sandbox if needed for attribution of the merge - see WP:MAD. T. Canens ( talk) 01:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Hardly ranks highly in terms of sporting scandals. Have already merged the relevant information into Tana Umaga and Chris Masoe after no responses to a merge suggestion. Was going to redirect, but think it is unlikely to be used as a search term. AIRcorn (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment I thought this would be a no brainer and did not put in enough information about why I think it should be deleted. My bad. Basically I am questioning the enduring notability of the event. Tana Umaga is more likely to be remembered for his tackle on Brian O'Driscol than this incident, which the article even states was blown out of proportion. The Aussies making fun of the All Blacks in a video clip and a third place on a sports broadcasters nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment don't make it particularly notable to my mind. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Product Description
Presenting wonderful examples of the political correctness gone absurd, this collection reflects on cases of authority who take themselves too seriously. From the army to city councils, this title features true and amusing blunders in political correctness.
Comment (1) WP:NOTNEWS only applies to single events. (2) Books trump WP:NOTNEWS because they are not news. The policy that applies is WP:Notability (events), "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else."
What we have here is six events, where events (2) through (6) were triggered by the first:
Each of these six has claim to enduring notability. But (1), (3), and (6) have stood the test of time. Given that the handbag auction received prominent placement in the 2010 book, and the apparent impact on NZ society as it transpired, it is probably the most notable. Note that only the first of these six events is a sports event. Unscintillating ( talk) 06:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Atmoz ( talk) 17:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a completely made up term to describe a collection of unrelated mountain ranges in southern Albania ( Gramos, Nemercke, etc...). Term has never been used by anyone in English except article creator, and is not in use in any of the literature. Athenean ( talk) 07:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Atmoz ( talk) 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Company of EXTREMELY questionable notability, references are either "not found" pages, self references, or do not mention the article subject in any way, shape or form. Wuh Wuz Dat 06:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 19:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails notability requirements as a company or organization Yaksar (let's chat) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge all to List of Oz characters. T. Canens ( talk) 01:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:GNG. We're not Oz Wikia, we don't need articles on every Oz character who was in one chapter of one book, especially if they're stubs and are only referenced by Oz compendia
I am also nominating the following other articles:
Note that I am only nominating ones that I feel to be very definitely non-notable; you may want to consider others as well Purple backpack89 05:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Atmoz ( talk) 16:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This entire topic should be moved to a role-playing wiki and removed from here (with the possible exception of a short summary) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The consensus is to keep this article but the nominator is right. Currently this article is nothing more then a dicdef. If it isn't expanded I suspect we will be back here very soon. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NOTDICDEF Yaksar (let's chat) 02:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 06:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:CORP. the awards lack national recognition. still lacks third party coverage. [42]. LibStar ( talk) 02:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
No indication this person meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Prod was contested by IP. Still not a notable song. Fixer23 ( talk) 11:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Ryan has shot down the rumor that the album will be released exclusively by Tesco at all and that there is no deal to release his album at the moment. Therefore, currently there is only one ref that confirmed an inital October 2010 release date. No tracklisting or production information just some unsourced information about a fan petition. In any case, an article can be created when there is actually real information available. There are next to no relaible sources on this album online. Fixer23 ( talk) 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Delete, per nomination, this is too much of a crystal ball. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to DHT (band). Stifle ( talk) 09:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
No notable solo activity outside of their group. Fixer23 ( talk) 03:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Online game. No evidence of notability. The only references are blogs, one of which advertizes itself as being a reference for PC online gaming since, get this, 1873. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 01:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Continued discussion will not change the fact that adequate sources to meet WP:GNG have not been found. lifebaka ++ 16:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Prolific yet otherwise unremarkable author. Fails WP:GNG. A Google news search turned up a few mentions as owner of restored hall in Suffolk, but certainly no mention of their "grand unified theory" of history. Almost all sources used are the author's own works. From the history of the article, and related articles on author's poems, a number of "single purpose accounts" seem to be associated with this BLP. In particular
User:Sanrac1959 has self-identified as Hagger's personal assistant.
Delicious carbuncle (
talk) 22:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
reply
“At O Books we do not claim to be a major publisher. The imprint only started in 2004. But the idea that we are only a step above a vanity publisher is absurd, and potentially damaging to us. Go to ‘About us’ on the website for comments from the trade, and reputable sources like The Bookseller, the main trade magazine in the UK.
We have published some poetry titles that we do not see as commercial, where the author or a university or an organization might make a contribution to the production costs. Three years ago (when that section of the website was written) that might have amounted to 1% or so of our list. Now it amounts to a small fraction of that, in terms of numbers of titles and income. Probably far less than most independent publishers, particularly in the area of academic publishing and poetry. We just happen to be open about it.
It’s not my place to comment on the tone of the entry, but I can assure the administrators that we publish Nicholas Hagger on his merit and his sales. He has also been published by other independent publishers like Watkins. His titles get excellent endorsements and reviews, from serious people, prominent in the fields of art and philosophy. A sample review from one of the latest works of his we’ve published, The New Philosophy of Universalism:
In this magisterial work Nicholas Hagger unites the rational and intuitive strands of Western philosophy in the light of the latest findings from physics, cosmology, biology, ecology and psychology. His in-depth exposition of these sciences and their philosophical implications is breathtaking in scope and detail and fully justifies his declaration of a Metaphysical Revolution, which also has profound consequences for our understanding of world affairs. This is one of the most important philosophical books to appear since Whitehead’s ‘Process and Reality’ eighty years ago and deserves the widest possible readership. A stupendous achievement. David Lorimer, Programme Director, Scientific and Medical Network
Of course others will disagree. But I can’t see this factor as reason for deleting the entry (rather than revising it if necessary). The comment that Nicholas Hagger is a ‘wealthy self promoter’ is irrelevant. I have no idea how wealthy he is. But when did having money mean you weren’t able to write? How many other authors would that now exclude? And few authors today are not engaged in promotion of some kind. Nicholas Hagger has no financial stake or connection with, or ownership of, or shares in, O Books (one of several imprints in John Hunt Publishing Ltd, to which the same applies), and O Books has no connection with Oak-Tree Books. He is one of 700 or so authors we currently have on the website, and treated on the same basis as all the others.
John Hunt, Owner, John Hunt Publishing Ltd, O Books and other imprints.
O-Books www.o-books.net, Zero Books www.zero-books.net, Circle Books www.circle-books.net.”
Posted at the request of John Hunt/O Books by Sanrac1959 ( talk) 12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Did SmartSE have a look, as suggested, at the WP article on Elizabeth Gray Vining, which is almost exclusively about her appointment as tutor by the Japanese Imperial Household for three years, and assess the degree of notability conferred by Hagger’s appointment by the Japanese Imperial Household as tutor to Prince Hitachi for a similar length of time? The book on Scargill was in two parts: sayings and analysis. There are review articles about this book, but I was responding to the inability of many to find articles by Hagger or about Hagger’s pre-internet work on the internet, and establishing that it exists. The images have verified the sources.
WP:BASIC holds that multiple independent sources may be combined, and a combination of the articles about Hagger’s books through interviews at Otley Hall and about his role in the miners’ strike, added to his tutoring of Prince Hitachi, the deleted in-depth studies by Sebastian Barker and Bennett Freeman, and the deleted letter by Ted Hughes, which constitutes a valid secondary source now it has been published in The Letters of Ted Hughes, collectively make a case for a degree of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanrac1959 ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
No notability established or asserted. No inline citations; no independent source attesting to notability by wp:GNG. Article was prodded before. Article was included in multi-article AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) which was closed without deletion of any, but with no judgement on individual article's merits. (Note: article was since moved from St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish, Middletown to current "St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish (Middletown, Connecticut)" name.) do ncr am 06:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Parishes and churches notability. -- WlaKom ( talk) 11:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
To Doncram. Do you really understand what does the Parish mean? See again Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Parishes and churches notability. So far you didn't provide any substantive arguments. This article has sources, is about historical organization (100 year old parish in U.S. is very historical) and the article doesn't have to be long. Tell me. What do you want to achieve? The discussion about the AFD related to parish/church has been closed until we find criteria. How long do you want to continue this unproductive discussion? -- WlaKom ( talk) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Reminder again and again. "the Knights of Columbus group affiliated with the church" - wrong. affiliated with the parish. Orlady, how many times I have to remind you about it. This discussion is about Roman Catholic Parish in Middletown, CT. They could have a meeting in the church but the group includes parishioners not bells or windows. Look like you try to discuss about the issue you don't have a clue what are you taking about. If I don't know too much about the football, I never write the word on the football forum. Sorry for this comment.-- WlaKom ( talk) 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Down for Life (film) is the only notable film he's had a major role in, as a unit producer (not executive producer). The Golden Eagle award link goes to a Russian award, which is not what the article says he won; that award and the associated organizatino are not notable either. Appear to be multiple WP:SPA account involved with promotional aspects of this and other articles (e.g. [66], [67], [68]). OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unsourced self-advertisement for a non-notable organization. Damiens.rf 17:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu ( talk) 20:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The 2 participants in this discussion have convinced me that the subject is nost likely notable but for a BLP there's not enough participation for a "keep" close. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. No fewer than six of his claimed books are from notorious vanity press iUniverse--that means that he has opened his checkbook six times in order to pay money to pose as a published author. Obviously, per WP:SPS, those titles cannot be used as WP:RS to support WP:N or WP:CREATIVE. Qworty ( talk) 23:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP since April 2010. Although there are assertions of notability in the article, it completely fails WP:V All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per onsensus here that "Yale Series of Younger Poets" award confers notability. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 06:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Concerns over WP:N Levinge ( talk) 17:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. J04n( talk page) 18:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 09:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:PORNBIO, and no significant independent coverage found. Epbr123 ( talk) 11:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Wolfotwitz has disingenously conflated me (former Magpie1892) with the fixed IP above. A summary checkuser would show no connection but that wouldn't make for such acompelling case for our friend HW. Further, I had issues with HW looooooooong before the SPI (which, again, was not initiated by HW) so it's not accurate to base my problems with HW's erratic and arrogant editing with the aforementioned. Again, it's a nice distraction, but has no basis in truth. People are constantly complaining about Woloftwitz and the reasons why are all too evident - he's a liar and a boor. -- 85.237.211.209 ( talk) 10:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The question of whether someone meets WP:BIO is a matter of fact, to be determined by consensus in each case. The contributors are convinced that Mr. Kenny meets these requirements, and it is not for me to differ. Stifle ( talk) 09:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
non-notable subject MoyrossLADY ( talk) 01:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be written by the subject.
The subject appears to be a journalist and author. He writes a weekly column for an Irish sunday newspaper and has written three humorous Irish books (all ranking past the 1 millionth bestseller mark on Amazon).
He does not qualify for notability per WP:AUTHOR
He does not fulfil any of the following:
I don't mean to hurt the feelings of the subject but he appears to be just an average guy doing a job and non-notable. MoyrossLADY ( talk) 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep but probably merge. Discussion on how and where to merge should continue on the article talk page. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Edward F. Ricketts State Marine Conservation Area covers two marine reserves. This article is about only one of them. I don't think this article is being very useful at the moment. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable musician (fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO). This is a renomination based on poor voter turnout at previous, recently closed AfD. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Also of note:
Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 06:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 12:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Firefox browser extension. No non-trivial coverage. Small user base. WP:SPA. Damiens.rf 17:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. Beeblebrox ( talk) 08:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
A non notable marial art organisation without sources to back up notabilty Dwanyewest ( talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable institution, lacks significant coverage from secondary reliable sources to assert notability. Prod was contested. — ξ xplicit 21:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Young minor league hockey player, and good luck to him, but little to point to notability. Does not make the current notability standard per WP:NHOCKEY of 100 games in a fully professional minor league. Geofth ( talk) 22:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged flagging notability issues since 2009. Joker264 ( talk) 08:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply