The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1–2 ( non-admin closure) Mephistophelian (contact) 00:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC). reply
Correction: In actuality, Efik, because of it's importance in trade and other such activities, is widely spoken by Annang and Ibibio people . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.245.9.101 ( talk • contribs)
The organisation of the 3 languages is incorrect. Efik is the official language name and the name by which the group of 3 languages together are known. The 3 sub languages are then Ibibio, Anaang and Efik. Even though Efik has the least speakers, it's the official name. So the redirect should not be to the "Ibibio Language" it should be to the "Efik Language".
==Ibibio language template==
If you are a native speaker of Ibibio then you can help translate this template into your own language:
Edit-- Amazonien ( talk) 21:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply
== objection to not clarifying that the phrases are Ibibio ==
{{Efik language:move|Ibibio langauge}} Kwamikagami do you speak Efik? I doubt it because if you did you wouldn't want to move Efik language to a page written with Ibibio phrases! Efik is a different language and not the official spoken language in Akwa ibom State where Ibibio language is spoken. The 2 languages do have similarity just like Spanish and French, but the content of the page and phrases is still written in Ibibio. Seems you are from Ghana and you do not understand that are calling a page Spanish language while the content like phrases is written in French. [added by User:Ibibiogrl on 15:08, 2011 May 31]
We use English here. In English, the names Ibibio, Efik, and Ibibio-Efik are often used for the same thing. We explain that in the article. We also explain that the phrases are Ibibio rather than Efik proper. That shouldn't be confusing. As for Ukwa, your ignorance is not evidence of anything. We are based on WP:reliable sources, not on your opinions. Please read the welcome links on your talk page, so that you understand how things are done here. — kwami ( talk) 01:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Actually, just as well you deleted the phrases. We're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or phrasebook. — kwami ( talk) 01:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
If you want to discuss changes to the article, fine. But you need sources for your claims, and so far your edits have been incoherent, such as denying that Efik is Ibibio, and then describing how it is Ibibio. — kwami ( talk) 08:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply
It's not just a matter of sources, but of intelligible edits. When you're done with the article, it's inconsistent and incoherent. I don't care what your sources are, that's just bad writing. And in any case some blog you post does not count as a source. See WP:reliable sources.
We can have separate articles on Ibibio and Efik, if you care to develop them. But we cannot have the same article under two names, nor an article on Ibibio-Efik that does not include Ibibio, nor an article on Efik that does not include Efik. A little common sense would be helpful. — kwami ( talk) 21:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Don't throw a tantrum. You're not getting that incoherent version back. Say what you want, as above, provide references, as above, and I'll see what I can do. Otherwise, go away. I won't reply further unless you provide something relevant to respond to. — kwami ( talk) 01:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Ibibio language http://globalrecordings.net/en/langcode/ibb and http://coral.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/Courses/Summer04/Lexicography/IbibioDictionary/ibibio_dictionary01.pdf
The fact that you are not familiar with Ibibio-Efik does not mean it does not exist. Take Oko Essien, an Ibibio, who wrote A grammar of the Ibibio language in 1990. He says, in Ibibio names: their structure and their meanings:
and,
He prefers "Ibibio" as the cover term, others prefer "Efik" (which is why this page was moved), and still others prefer "Ibibio-Efik" so as not to elevate one group over the other. — kwami ( talk) 23:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC) reply
"In actuality, Efik, because of it's importance in trade and other such activities, is widely spoken by Annang and Ibibio people " and "It might hold for both. Ibibio, sometimes seens as a dialect of Efik, is numerically the most important of such dialects and is according to Kaufman (1979)"
Now you're contradicting yourself: You're complaining that this article needs to be called "Efik", but it is called Efik! How can I take you seriously when you say such things?
Also, I just read the Maobong site you linked to above. [1] The best I can say about it is that whoever wrote it is utterly ignorant about the topic. Say what you want for this article coherently, so that people can understand you by reading your words, and supply reliable sources as references, not some random idiot who posted a web page.
As for you threat to disrupt Wikipedia if you do not get your way, we don't take kindly to that. If you carry through, we'll probably just protect this article so that you cannot edit it. If, however, editors from Ibibioland start disrupting the encyclopedia, we might have to put in a range block so that no-one from Ibibioland can edit any Wikipedia article. Hopefully your threat is just bluster and it won't come to that. — kwami ( talk) 07:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
http://www.maobongoku.com/maobong_mypeople_efiklang_author.htm
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
local failure Yotemordis ( talk) 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Hoax, this place does not exist, it might but not even being built yet! Yotemordis ( talk) 23:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Unaccomplished local politician, poorly sourced Yotemordis ( talk) 23:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non notable casino Yotemordis ( talk) 23:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non notable Yotemordis ( talk) 23:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. All the information here is included in the relevant articles, so this is needless duplication of information. I see no benefit in this being a separate article. I note that there do not appear to be similar articles for pop music scandals from other countries, and although this is not a reason to delete this one per se, it is an indication that there is no need for this type of list. If this article is kept, it should be re-written as a list with brief details ("xyz was sued by abc becase of mno") with links to the relevant sections in the artists' articles. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 23:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Extended/lengthy comments (largely by Standage, the article's creator, and Phantomsteve)
|
---|
I am also highly puzzled by the passion to either remove this article or water it down. There is no legitimate reason to do that. It is not wrong to ask what a person's motives are to withhold factual and documented information. That's called censorship and I think censorship stinks.
Also, at one point he gives people orders about how they should approach this debate. He falsely tells people to ignore directions about comparing articles. He falsely tells people that whether or not this article is similar to another does not matter. It does matter and wikipedia says so. This is so wrong for him to do.
This is really silly. Leave this page alone please. Let the truth be demonstrated. That's wikipedia's function. The demand that this page be deleted is so un-wikipedia that it is not even funny. arlenesgrocerygal Arlenesgrocerygal ( talk) 11:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)NOTE: This account is a confirmed sockpuppet of Standage, the article's creator ( SPI) reply Listen. I just checked the wikipedia delete page. There are four criteria for an original article. The work I did out here on this article meets ALL FOUR criteria. The guy who wants to delete this seems to be pulling criteria out of nowhere (among other things already mentioned). Honestly. I am so upset - I thought wikipedia was going to be a good and enriching experience and instead I think that some people delete for the sake of deleting or perhaps some people have hidden motives to delete or water down articles. If certain facts are potentially upsetting to some powerful people or companies, do these articles get deleted? I hope not. My final word: This article is a substantial and meaningful contributuion to wikipedia. It meets the criteria for a new article and I believe that as time goes by others will contribute to it and make it better. Or I will come out here and try to improve it when I have time. It meets the criteria to exist and it should exist as an article and not as a list (for already mentioned reasons). Thank you. I will trust in the integrity of the system here since I have enjoyed using and supporting wikipedia in the past. I feel that even if a thousand sock puppets or other creatures were to come out here to denounce or seek deletion or watering down of this article, wikipedia will do what is right. I have my fingers crossed. I am out here defending my work. This is why I was willing to fight so hard. I have to ask myself why this other guy is fighting so hard to delete this article? That doesn't make sense to me - someone even mentioned that he/she has not seen this level of "discussion" before. standage Standage ( talk) 17:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
|
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Move to wiktionary, unsourced, speculative, or Yotemordis ( talk) 23:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. De728631, you are free to either renominate or make a merge proposal on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This song does not seem notable enough for its own article. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a neologism or dictionary entry, not notable not referenced. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non notable RS song, merge with article on album or musician. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This is unreferenced and seems to be an ad for a college or amateur art project. No citations. OR. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced OR, some parlor game with no sources. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, obviously notable and nominator hasn't read the article properly (not "136th place", but "136th running of the race"). Nominator needs to slow down. Bencherlite Talk 01:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non notable and uneventful athlete whose claim to fame is coming in 136th place! super stud, not even a paragraph. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non notable game, only played on a singular TV show. Merge into that article and delete this article. Not referenced. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close, nominator indef-blocked as sockpuppet. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 02:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This topic is not of note. Super stub. OR issues. Yotemordis ( talk) 22:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation per WP:CSD#G12 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs) ( non-admin closure). Beloved Freak 11:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:N. The largest potential claims for notability are publishing books (which do not appear to be heavily cited). I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. This sounds like a successful attorney, but not a notable one by Wikipedia standards. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 23:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 17:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. I tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 22:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as a copyright violation of [7]. Fram ( talk) 09:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. I tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete individual places of worship are not notable, this article is not referenced at all. It has no claim to fame let alone references to back it up. Move to a Judaism in x state article perhaps? Yotemordis ( talk) 23:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 22:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Clearly, this article has no sources. JJ98 ( Talk) 22:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
BLP Prod contested with a link to a single Maxim picture and bio. Google gets a grand total of three hits, two of which are Facebook pages. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 21:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. The recent edits established notability and resulted in late consensus to keep. Orlady ( talk) 20:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
It sounds like the only notability claim is that the Rabbi who founded it was notable. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 21:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete individual places of worship are not notable, this article is not referenced at all. It has no claim to fame let alone references to back it up. Move to a Judaism in x state article perhaps? Yotemordis ( talk) 23:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This article has been created by an account whose sole purpose seems to be to add external links to pages from Eland Cables. The article is a minimal stub with no real content, except for the final sentence which makes the ridiculous claim that cables generate green electric power. The cable is a single core insulated sheathed cable: there is nothing particular special about it and the intersection with solar power is not demonstrated to be a notable topic.
Delete as nom
Spinning
Spark
20:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
Speedy delete this is an ad. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Note: Yotemordis ( talk · contribs) blocked as a sock puppet. — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Improve I can expand the article with more references. I've deleted the last sentence. Eleanor1975 ( talk) 10:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Eleanor1975 Eleanor1975 ( talk) 10:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This article has been created by an account whose sole purpose seems to be to add external links to pages from Eland Cables. The article is a minimal stub with no real content. There really is not a class of "rail cables" as such. Certainly there are many different kinds of cable that are made to meet the specifications of the rail industry but the same can be said of many other industries - aeronautic, automotive, medical etc. The intersection between cable classes and railways is not demonstrated to be a notable subject for an article.
The result was speedy delete. CSD G4. Only because actuall good faith editors have found evidence that this is a hoax. I was half tempted to delete both the article and this AFD per WP:IAR and WP:DENY. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Hoax, none of the content is
verifiable. Infobox seems to be based on the one of
Panda Energy International. Website looks like a crude hoax.
Anthem
19:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This magazine does not appear to be notable. I declined an A7 speedy as it was not merely a website. I prodded the article, but that has been challenged by the article creator (one of the magazine creators?) on the basis of notable writers included within the magazine. I am not seeing WP:RS about the magazine though, to establish WP:notability. Ladyof Shalott 18:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 20:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I've searched for sources to verify his appearances for Gimnàstic but couldn't find anything. Argyle 4 Life talk 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nom. ( non-admin closure) v/r - T P 21:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Book fails
Wikipedia:Notability_(books) and
WP:GNG. Could not find significant sources for it on a google search or any reviews other than user-generated reviews on commercial websites such as Amazon. Withdrawn per Arxiloxos v/r -
T
P
17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Discussion concerning a potential merge or redirect should continue at the talk pages of the relevant articles. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 22:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
(UPDATED) Since my nomination for deletion, it has become clear that it is the Nabro Volcano which is erupting. Nonetheless, the Nabro wiki has more than enough room to deal with this event. While there is some effect on aviation, it is limited for now. Michael5046 ( talk) 11:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep it - very little information on the web on the subject, hopefully can get more updates on it's effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.111.243 ( talk) 19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. The article is better off to be renamed 2011 eruption of Nabro. Volcano guy 12:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I cannot find sufficient RS support for this person's notability. Tagged for notability since 2009. Epeefleche ( talk) 05:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
It is completely unnecessary to have separate article for every article of the European Convention on Human Rights. It cannot be justified on either notability or size grounds. This one is particularly bad as Article 1 isn't a substantive provision. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 20:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is about an engine that at this point is no more than someone's garage experiment. The fact that said someone gave an interview to the newsmedia 5 years ago does not make it notable for inclusion in wikipedia. Patent application was applied for. Was abandoned. At least a dozen prior claimants on the idea, most notably Dyer in 1915 and most recently Singh with two patents. Prior deletion discussion centered on existence of patent, which will never transpire. Dlw20070716 ( talk) 16:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, under criterion 1: No workable rationale for deletion has been presented. Original AfD tagger was an IP, but that IP did not leave a rationale for deletion anywhere that I could find. No prejudice against re-nomination with a valid rationale. Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't believe this page should be deleted because it is notable, has verified sources and is still fully operational. Thank you. NCSS ( talk) 00:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 19:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable term with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Tiamut talk 18:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This page was nominated for deletion in 2008 ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pledge of the Tree). It was kept because a number of people claimed that references for it existed. 3 years on and not one of those people have bothered to add any refs; the article remains utterly bare of any form of sourcing. William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted (CSD G5: Creations by banned or blocked users) JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
It fails WP:NALBUMS for no release date, no tracklisting and no title confirmed. Way too early to have a page. ׺°”˜`”°º× ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Resident Evil (film series)#Future. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Chiefly unreferenced. Even parts of the article which reference a source fail verification. Also fails notability mandates required by Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. Generally speaking, I and some other people in the article talk page believe this title is a rumor entirely. Fleet Command ( talk) 16:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep CBD 22:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No out-of-universe context or notability, no independent sources. Content is just OR plot. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio ( talk) 16:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Independence of the source is much less of an issue in this context as well (once you've already determined that the work is notable through independent sources), particularly since in most cases the work's own authors are going to be the most authoritative about its contents and intent. For example, you do not need to cite to the independent critic Roger Ebert for the fact that Han Solo is a character in Star Wars, or that Harrison Ford played him (and it would be silly to do so); this is easily verifiable from the film itself, or any number of official Star Wars books. As long as you're not relying on such primary sources for POV self-promotional statements, such as "Han Solo is the greatest film character ever." postdlf ( talk) 23:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Delete all. I'm a little surprised that the two deposits articles wern't discussed much, so I'd be open to a good argument to restore one or both of them and rerun the AFD on those, but there's a consensus that all three articles should be deleted here. Courcelles 01:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is almost entirely sourced to press releases. Searching GNews indicated that most coverage seemed to be sourced from the same press releases. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Badricks ( talk) 06:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No out-of-universe context or notability, no independent sources apart from 1 trivial mention. Article consists of OR plot only. Fails WP:GNG. Crusio ( talk) 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List_of_Digimon_Adventure_characters. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No out-of-universe context or notability, no independent sources apart from 1 trivial mention. Article consists of OR plot only. Fails WP:GNG. Crusio ( talk) 15:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. Only assertions of notability are appearances on blogs. No evidence of being on national music charts, appearing in reliable secondary sources, non-trivial coverage of a concert tour, major record labels, notability of the members, or any major music awards. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 14:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Article by a teenage author about his novel. No indication, and searches find none, that it meets the notability requirements of WP:Notability (books). I have included an identical article under a different title. JohnCD ( talk) 14:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Queen Mary, University of London. Consensus is that there's no basis for a standalone article. Content can be merged from the history based on subsequent editorial consensus. Sandstein 19:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This article is about a research centre at Queen Mary University. I can find no significant coverage about this research centre to establish notability. Whpq ( talk) 14:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW joe decker talk to me 20:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is not encyclopedic. Yes, DNF had a troubled and long development history. So have many other programs and games. I don't see why this needs a separate article on its own. Presumably the development section in the main DNF article got too long and they spun it off as its own article, but it's really not notable on its own. ScienceApe ( talk) 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. v/r - T P 16:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The Silk Road just isn't notable enough to have its own article. The only references anyone has been able to provide are a Gawker blog article and a passing reference on a Guardian blog. Heck, we're still not entirely sure that it isn't just a hoax, so verifiability is another big issue here. Cyde Weys 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by JamesBWatson ( talk · contribs) per A10; redundant with Thiemassassians. Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Thiemassassian seems to be a new term that is not generally used. While I have found references to Thillmans. Descamps and Khayat here and other places on google scholar, none of them use the term. Thiemassassian only appears in general google searches on wikipedia and mirrors. noq ( talk) 14:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:N, WP:V--Unable to find any sources for this actor/director, but it's possible I'm being tripped up by a language barrier and not having a translations of his name outside of English. Some claims of potential notability if they could be verified. Additional sources welcomed. joe decker talk to me 14:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This website is relatively new and not very notable to have a Wikipedia article. Its Facebook page has less than 80 fans, so hardly anyone uses the website or even know about it or its founder. Almost all of the information in this article was added by the founder himself, User:Robgrantn, with no reliable sources. He even tried to create a Wikipedia article about himself and he is nowhere close to being notable enough for that, being just a 21-year-old law student from New York. The founder is my elementary school classmate and had the audacity of unfriending me on Facebook when I tried to help him improve the article. I know he worked hard with adding all that information, but the website is just not significant enough to have a Wikipedia article at this time. This article belongs more on a Law or Website Wiki like this one, not an encyclopedia. This is not the place to promote a new company. The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Objectively, a former classmate who was "unfriended" on Facebook shouldn't qualify as the person recommending deletion of an article. This seems like a malicious attack over a bruised ego rather than an unbiased review of content.
For the record, I submitted most of the content for the information on the page not Robert Niznik. If the site needs work, than I am happy to add or change what is required. The page had been approved and was growing and improving until your ego got bruised.
This 21 year old, Robert Niznik was in the Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, and the Economist. He was most recently interviewed by NBC News about the PROCESS he has employed via vie Shpoonkle. The site is about promoting advocacy and the condition of the Legal Environment today and not an advertisement. The site and service has been in over 600 renowned international publications in less than ninety days. To my knowledge the amount of fans you have on Facebook should not and is not a criteria of notability. The website has over 2000 registered users and has thousands of page visits a day which is considered substantial.
The article has citations from notable sources, its objective about the services offered, and also follows Wikipedia's guidelines. You actually wrote to Robert (see email below) telling him not to worry that the page just needed some clean up and would be fine. So because this person is no longer a Facebook friend your using your position with Wikipedia to have this article deleted? Not only is not ethical and a misuse of the fiduciary responsibilities Wikipedia has entrusted in you it is just plain wrong. The purpose of the article was not promotion of the company but to educate of a process and service that is FREE and trying to help people.
This is the message you sent Robert Niznik on June 8th 2011 at 8:25:
___________________________________________________Winson Thai June 8 at 8:25pm Report
The article will NOT be deleted just because of the template. I put it there so you and the people who work for your company will know that it still needs a lot of work (heck, you did not even include a link to the site at the bottom of the page). Just keep improving the page and you can remove the template. No worries.
_____________________________________________________________
We made the changes you suggested and then you marked it for deletion because he didn't want to be your Facebook Friend anymore? I am asking the Wikipedia community to help me stop people like this from using their personal agendas in this forum/site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierceenigma ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Fierceenigma ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Article does not attribute reliable secondary sources and does not assert any notability. ( WP:V, WP:N). I could not locate any sources. Marasmusine ( talk) 14:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. v/r - T P 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
There is virtually no significant coverage of the concept of an 'executive summary' to be found. The reasons given for the removal of the PROD were that (a) the term is used a lot, ie. WP:ITEXISTS; and (b) the term produces many results on Google, ie. WP:GHITS. An attempt earlier today to flesh it out merely resulted in two examples of executive summaries being added; one from the State Department and one from the IEA. While moderately interesting, these don't substantiate the notability of executive summaries conceptually. This page is treated as a reference, although it is simply a short and glorified how-to-guide/dicdef.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary and unless there is any detailed coverage of this topic, the article will never progress beyond being a slightly wishy-washy definition page. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Syndic General─╢ 13:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Userfy to User:Patel almitra/Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India. v/r - T P 15:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Copy and pasted from [www.almitrapatel.com/docs/055.doc]; contested CSD; it's not an encylopedic article; it's more like a combination between advertisement and how-to-guide. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power [citation needed] 12:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Copyright concerns - now resolved
|
---|
|
"Indians have a remarkably small ecological footprint compared to citizens in advanced countries." (followed by various statistics)
"On the technical front, some research is currently going on to make PVCs degradable through the blending of biopolymer components. This is disastrous."
"Micro-packaging sachets are the most needed and most promising mass market for biopolymers."
"A money-making racket is going on in cities like Pune, where degradable bags are required to be used for biomedical waste management."
There's also a problem with the time constructs, words and phrases like "is going on", "now", "may soon be", "recent", "currently", etc.. These have no concrete time reference. The article was published 8 years ago, making these phrases meaningless, and also making the assertions containing them potentially out of date. I personally found the article very interesting. I'm wondering if a more appropriate place to put it would be Wikiversity, another a Wikimedia Foundation project which does accept material like this. Voceditenore ( talk) 06:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Patel almitra ( talk) 05:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Ghost Writer for edits! reply
Whoops! I see that you have now moved the page back into article space under a new title Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India. I've fixed the double re-direct, and adjusted the links on this AfD page and at the new page. But please don't make anymore page moves until the AfD is closed. The current new title will eventually have to be fixed if the AfD decision is to keep rather than userfy. It should be Plastic recycling and biopolymers in India to conform with capitalisation of titles and the standard spelling of biopolymers on Wikipedia. but let an adminstrator sort it out. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 07:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Copyright concerns - now resolved
|
---|
I hereby affirm that [I, Almitra Patel am] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [Work on Solid waste Management in India which are in the form of essays under the titles of Waste Policy in India Plastics Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers articles, at http://www.almitrapatel.com/swm.htm, and http://www.almitrapatel.com/plastics_roads.htm] I agree to [publish these works under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (almitrapatel@rediffmail.com)] [SENDER'S AUTHORITY (Copyright Holder for http://www.almitrapatel.com/)] [DATE (14/06/2011)] Patel almitra ( talk) 10:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani reply
I certify that OTRS permission is confirmed in ticket 2011061410006865. – Adrignola talk 16:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply |
Thank you Bearian, for your vote of confidence. We shall strive to make better edits and meet the standards Wiki demands. Shall look at the articles you have mentioned and see where this one can be slotted in. Patel almitra ( talk) 05:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Ghost Writer for edits! reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This scouting badge does not seem to meet
the general notability guideline, due to a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources.
Anthem
11:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Hoax Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't find no reliable and independent evidence confirming that this person ever existed. During its short existence here on Wikipedia, the article became a target of really strange editing, see for example this. I asked the article's creator for explanation, but I received no answer. I'm sorry to say that, but I suspect a hoax. Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 11:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Procedural keep. This can be immediately relisted. v/r - T P 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Plot only coverage of a fictional topic, which does not meet the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple third party sources. Anthem 11:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Procedural keep, this can be immediately relisted. v/r - T P 14:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Plot only coverage of a fictional aircraft carrier. Additionally, the subject of the articles fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources on the topic. Anthem 11:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any discriminative major databases. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals Crusio ( talk) 10:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This person is probably fictional. The cited sources do not seem to exist (and given their publication dates cannot possibly cover much of the article). The bio reads like a series of lame jokes. On the talk page, a comment suggests that the character has been made up by Andre Vincent which sounds more plausible than anything in this article. Rl ( talk) 09:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Powerpuff Girls. v/r - T P 14:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Only two references, this article does not meet the episode's notability. JJ98 ( Talk) 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:GNG. for a recent festival nothing in gnews and nothing in a major Australian news service [63]. LibStar ( talk) 07:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 07:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in secondary sources makes this obscure section of an obscure Australian standard non-notable. The article is just a summary of the regulation, not an encyclopedia. This article appears to have been created as part of a university project; see this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for related articles. bou·le·var·dier ( talk) 06:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete Unencyclopedic compliance guide. Nothing that seems to pass GNG. Nothing significantly salvageable. Lord Vetinari 07:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in secondary sources makes this obscure section of an obscure Australian standard non-notable. The article is just a summary of the regulation, not an encyclopedia. This article appears to have been created as part of a university project; see this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for related articles. bou·le·var·dier ( talk) 06:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete Unencyclopedic compliance guide. Nothing that seems to pass GNG. Nothing significantly salvageable. Lord Vetinari 07:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 07:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in secondary sources makes this obscure section of an obscure Australian standard non-notable. The article is just a summary of the regulation, not an encyclopedia. This article appears to have been created as part of a university project; see this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for related articles. bou·le·var·dier ( talk) 06:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete Unencyclopedic compliance guide. Nothing that seems to pass GNG. Nothing significantly salvageable. Lord Vetinari 07:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Changing close to delete per series of AfDs on this subject v/r - T P 14:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in secondary sources makes this obscure section of an obscure Australian standard non-notable. The article is just a summary of the regulation, not an encyclopedia. Nothing worth merging into the main article - indeed similar content was deleted from that main article. This article appears to have been created as part of a university project; see this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for related articles. Contested PROD. bou·le·var·dier ( talk) 06:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete or Merge Unencyclopedic compliance guide. Nothing that seems to pass GNG and warrants a separate article. Lord Vetinari 07:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Still unsourced (and, it seems, unsourceable) after nearly sixseven years. No improvement since the first AFD 3 years ago. Arguments that members also played in other bands of similar obscurity and with a similar lack of coverage seemed to win the argument last time, but how long are we going to keep an unsourced, unverifiable article like this?
Michig (
talk)
05:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [65] and nothing in a major Australian news website [66]. those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 07:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Without prejudice to recreation if RS'ing for 1974 Asian Games is found. joe decker talk to me 00:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm guessing he represented Iran at the 1974 Asian Games that were held in Iran, but I can't find any evidence of this. Happy to withdraw the nomination or recreate if proof that he was in the team at a significant competition is able to be found. The-Pope ( talk) 12:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Jump5. v/r - T P 14:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No other member of Jump5 has a personal article, and he has no other major contributions to the industry Christiefan1 ( talk) 23:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Minor league baseball player who fails Wikipedia:MLB/N. Albacore ( talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Has released one "album" since 2005. Said album only contains 3 tracks on it, none of which have charted from what I can see. I have found it difficult to establish the notability of this person through reliable sources. Of the sources listed in the article, they either fall into not reliable, nor not independent of the subject. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:RECENTISM;
WP:NOTNEWS; Non notable event, no casualties, no deaths, no damage. Though it caused some damage, I don't think it is worthy of having an article on Wikipedia. At the very least, merge with
2011 Christchurch earthquake
Diego Grez (
talk)
03:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
Delete as per OP's reasoning. The cited policies exist for a reason and having pages on non notable news events does harm wikipedia Noformation Talk 04:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete Ajraddatz, it harms us in that it is an example of turning Wikipedia into a news source. This website is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and as such, it needs to fit the criteria in WP:NOTNEWS, as stated above. The way the article is written is irrelevant, this discussion is about the subject of the article. This earthquake, while tragic, is a news event, not an encyclopedic event. Bstbll ( talk) 05:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
At very worst, Merge it into the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Nath1991 ( talk) 09:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep, SMH reports ~50 buildings collapsed. This is clearly a major event. [67] -- Xaliqen ( talk) 10:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep: It is a new chapter in a sequence of events dating to Sep 2010, as a major event in the cycle it warrants its own page, particularly notable for a rapid sequence of severe shocks causing significant further damage to already fragile structures, multiple injuries and fresh damage to already repaired infrastructure. The event is four months from the Feb quake and which was four months from the Sept quake, and will trigger it's own sequence of aftershocks over the next few days. Over 50 buildings collapsed in the CBD. So KEEP. 118.136.208.35 ( talk) 11:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/canterbury-earthquake/77629/more-significant-quakes-rock-canterbury http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/06/20116134130249928.html 118.136.208.35 ( talk) 11:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
-- Stormchaser89 ( talk) 11:56am, 13 June 2011 (US central time)
Strong Keep: One fatality, an old man who fell over an was knocked unconcious in the quake and later died. Around 45 injuries, significant further damage to the city, at 6.3 the main shock was of the same magnitude as the Feb 22 quake, the latest quake was on a fault not linked to the Feb 22 event, so it's a new event in a cycle of quakes striking the city. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/christchurch-wakes-to-50-earthquake-20110615-1g2b4.html 118.136.208.35 ( talk) 01:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This should stay, because one person was killed and it caused more damage, including a few buildings collapsing. If it happened in America then of course it would stay, so why not New Zealand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.58.80 ( talk) 03:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The company is very borderline on notability. There are some mentions in local media and minor media, no major coverage. Only source given is the company's website. Article is written in a general promotional tone, although it is not promotional enough to qualify for g11. Delete Safiel ( talk) 03:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Was tagged and blanked as a possible
attack page. Several admins, including me, are unsure what to do here (See:
Talk:Slash (bahrani)). The page has been left blanked as a precaution - see history to view contents.(content restored according to AfD template policy). The community should decide what should be done.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
03:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I am unable to find any reliable source coverage to establish notability. A link to ancestry.ca is the only source on the article, and that is behind a paywall. But in any case, it is a user generated content site, which even if it was available to the general public would still not constitute a reliable source. I am able to locate a few other similar user generated geneology site mentions as well, but those also do not appear to be reliable sources from a Wikipedia perspective. I am happy to withdraw this nomination if significant notability can be established through reliable sources. But as it stands now since I have been unable to locate them, this appears to not warrant an article. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 20:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to support the notability of this person, whose article has been tagged for notability for some time now. Epeefleche ( talk) 00:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:Notability, specifically fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There is no significant, sustained coverage of this company in any independent sources. A couple brief mentions exist (e.g. [71]) but the criteria call for more than that. Suggested search strings: Hyperformance + engine, Hyperformance + v-twin, Hyperformance + Harley, Hyperformance + racing, Hyperformance + Iowa, etc. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
There are no sources listed and none found to verify the authenticity or accuracy of this list. It was deprodded with claims of notability and because similar lists exist, yet lists like this aren't subject to notability but they are subject to verifiability. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 01:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Zero refs. Tagged for notability since 2009. Epeefleche ( talk) 04:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I've checked, and cannot myself find sufficient evidence of notability in the coverage of this band by reliable sources (though there is limited coverage). This article was considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveling Circle. Only 1 other editor -- an IP -- participated in the discussion. The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Epeefleche ( talk) 03:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Here are some more articles on Traveling Circle:
http://psychedelicbaby.blogspot.com/2011/05/traveling-circle-interview.html http://www.fileunder.nl/archives/2011/02/traveling_circle_handmade_house_1.php http://www.thedelimagazine.com/FeatureView.php?artist=travelingcircle http://mratavist.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/traveling-circle-handmade-house/ http://www.dreun.com/CdDetail.asp?Id_cd=5724 http://mratavist.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/traveling-circle-comes-around-interview/ http://wine-women-song.blogspot.com/2010/10/handmade-house-by-traveling-circle.html http://sonyudum.blogspot.com/2010/10/gunun-parcas-traveling-circle-note-rops.html http://www.kreetik.com/1/post/2010/9/interview-with-joshua-schultz-of-traveling-circle.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.131 ( talk) 18:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Traveling Circle exists and this is evidenced by their release on Nasoni Records out of Berlin. Yes, they are an underground band and some may think they're not 'notable' or 'significant'. But underground is a historic phenomenon and thus has a place in any encyclopaedia, especially an online one like wikipedia. And I can't believe someone is splitting hairs over the fact that Traveling Circle hasn't completed their second album yet as a requirement to be on wikipedia. They are currently working with Gordon Raphael (The Strokes producer) to release their second album. So even if someone deletes this page, I guess we'll just try to put it back up again when the second album is complete to keep things 'notable' and 'significant'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArkSon ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply
COMMENT: Both the Aquarian Weekly and Deli Magazine articles above appeared in their print editions. Upcoming article in the Italian print-only publication Vincebus Eruptum is forthcoming. Here is a link to the last issue: http://www.vincebuseruptum.it/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=139&Itemid=64 That makes at least three print articles. Thanks.
I believe with both an album on a significant independent record label and published articles covering the band both on the web and in print, this article satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. Could somebody please post a link to the criteria for including an entry on a band? I have read them previously but was not currently able to locate them though I made an effort to do so. I recall both of the above points to be among them. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.131 ( talk) 20:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Voice (U.S. TV series). Going out on a limb a bit here. The nom is a good one, and neither of the Keep votes adequately rebut it. Given that the AfD has already been relisted twice, the obvious "compromise" is to redirect to the parent show (as we normally do for non-winners or otherwise notable contestants). This also maintains the edit history should Ms.Elise become obviously notable in the future. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. This is a contestant in a reality television show, who as of this writing has yet to be named a winner (which is, as we all already know, the bare minimum that Wikipedia requires for deeming a reality show contestant to be notable; contestants are not normally entitled to articles just for being contestants.) The article also has no reliable, independent sources to demonstrate notability outside of this context; all of its sources (including the ones that led the creator to feel entitled to deprod) are directly affiliated with either Ms. Elise herself or the program. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 00:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 04:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This Disney employee was named a Disney Legend, but that honor does not appear to be particularly notable (considering all the redlinked honorees). Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Not a notable person per WP:BIO. The article has only primary sources, or secondary sources with self-published material. The only real secondary source I found was this, which reports on all things Greek-Canadian. I wouldn't say it's a very good source. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasia Tubanos. It appears this article, with the nickname added, was created to prevent it from getting summarily deleted for recreation. Like all articles concerning Matt Campagna and company (this is his girlfriend or something), who in the past has frequently used Wikipedia as a vehicle for free advertisement and continues to do so, this article was created and almost solely edited by themselves. Atlan ( talk) 11:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 22:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Previous AFD closed as no consensus with no participation last year. There is simply no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The best I could manage is a local magazine listing them in a list of classical events in the Washington DC area. Whpq ( talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Unable to locate significant reliable source coverage indicating notability. Both of the "reviews" cited by the article are much too short to be significant and are more comparable to mere directory entries; the sources' independence is also questionable. I was unable to locate any other reliable source coverage of this software; it thus fails the WP:GNG. Cybercobra (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't like to see articles about free software be deleted because they are often useful for people seeking them out, regardless of notability criteria. Such programs get very little notice from third parties, in general, unless the program's author makes an effort to solicit such notice, so the usual criteria amounts to how much self-promotion has been done. However, the stub being considered for deleting in this case has so little content, and the program appears to be so marginally useful that little would be lost by the deletion. Dlw20070716 ( talk) 23:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Declined as a PROD and BLPPROD'd before I arrived at the article, I was obliged to decline the BLPPROD based on that policy's strict nomination criteria. I added the passing reference I found when I looked myself, but was unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide significant coverage of this presenter, which suggests that the article does not meet the general notability guideline. 3rd time at AfD, the last one was a delete in 2008, I'd suggest consideration of the question of whether salt should be applied here, I don't have a strong opinion on that. -- joe decker talk to me 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, non-existent MMO. Any notability is derived from the fact that this game essentially became Flickr, with no independent notability. Sourced from fan pages and rumors, and even then there is no content. Certainly deserving of a footnote in the Flickr page (it is already mentioned there), but does not meet our criteria for inclusion on its own. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. Fails WP:V. Zero reliable sources/non-trivial mentions -- AbsolutDan (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a prime example of a software page that is useful but fails the (currently flawed) wikipedia guidelines for notability as applied to software. Wikipedia will be diminished in its usefulness to the software community by removing this article, merely because the software author has failed to solicit third party reviews. I consider it a strong example of why the wikipedia notability criteria needs to be amended for free software. Dlw20070716 ( talk) 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close pending outcome of RFC/ArbCom case. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Attack page on Rick Santorum. Needs to be blanked and deleted per Policy. KoshVorlon ' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
KoshVorlon ' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters. v/r - T P 14:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No independent sources, no out-of-universe notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio ( talk) 14:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1–2 ( non-admin closure) Mephistophelian (contact) 00:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC). reply
Correction: In actuality, Efik, because of it's importance in trade and other such activities, is widely spoken by Annang and Ibibio people . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.245.9.101 ( talk • contribs)
The organisation of the 3 languages is incorrect. Efik is the official language name and the name by which the group of 3 languages together are known. The 3 sub languages are then Ibibio, Anaang and Efik. Even though Efik has the least speakers, it's the official name. So the redirect should not be to the "Ibibio Language" it should be to the "Efik Language".
==Ibibio language template==
If you are a native speaker of Ibibio then you can help translate this template into your own language:
Edit-- Amazonien ( talk) 21:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply
== objection to not clarifying that the phrases are Ibibio ==
{{Efik language:move|Ibibio langauge}} Kwamikagami do you speak Efik? I doubt it because if you did you wouldn't want to move Efik language to a page written with Ibibio phrases! Efik is a different language and not the official spoken language in Akwa ibom State where Ibibio language is spoken. The 2 languages do have similarity just like Spanish and French, but the content of the page and phrases is still written in Ibibio. Seems you are from Ghana and you do not understand that are calling a page Spanish language while the content like phrases is written in French. [added by User:Ibibiogrl on 15:08, 2011 May 31]
We use English here. In English, the names Ibibio, Efik, and Ibibio-Efik are often used for the same thing. We explain that in the article. We also explain that the phrases are Ibibio rather than Efik proper. That shouldn't be confusing. As for Ukwa, your ignorance is not evidence of anything. We are based on WP:reliable sources, not on your opinions. Please read the welcome links on your talk page, so that you understand how things are done here. — kwami ( talk) 01:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Actually, just as well you deleted the phrases. We're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or phrasebook. — kwami ( talk) 01:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC) reply
If you want to discuss changes to the article, fine. But you need sources for your claims, and so far your edits have been incoherent, such as denying that Efik is Ibibio, and then describing how it is Ibibio. — kwami ( talk) 08:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply
It's not just a matter of sources, but of intelligible edits. When you're done with the article, it's inconsistent and incoherent. I don't care what your sources are, that's just bad writing. And in any case some blog you post does not count as a source. See WP:reliable sources.
We can have separate articles on Ibibio and Efik, if you care to develop them. But we cannot have the same article under two names, nor an article on Ibibio-Efik that does not include Ibibio, nor an article on Efik that does not include Efik. A little common sense would be helpful. — kwami ( talk) 21:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Don't throw a tantrum. You're not getting that incoherent version back. Say what you want, as above, provide references, as above, and I'll see what I can do. Otherwise, go away. I won't reply further unless you provide something relevant to respond to. — kwami ( talk) 01:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Ibibio language http://globalrecordings.net/en/langcode/ibb and http://coral.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/Courses/Summer04/Lexicography/IbibioDictionary/ibibio_dictionary01.pdf
The fact that you are not familiar with Ibibio-Efik does not mean it does not exist. Take Oko Essien, an Ibibio, who wrote A grammar of the Ibibio language in 1990. He says, in Ibibio names: their structure and their meanings:
and,
He prefers "Ibibio" as the cover term, others prefer "Efik" (which is why this page was moved), and still others prefer "Ibibio-Efik" so as not to elevate one group over the other. — kwami ( talk) 23:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC) reply
"In actuality, Efik, because of it's importance in trade and other such activities, is widely spoken by Annang and Ibibio people " and "It might hold for both. Ibibio, sometimes seens as a dialect of Efik, is numerically the most important of such dialects and is according to Kaufman (1979)"
Now you're contradicting yourself: You're complaining that this article needs to be called "Efik", but it is called Efik! How can I take you seriously when you say such things?
Also, I just read the Maobong site you linked to above. [1] The best I can say about it is that whoever wrote it is utterly ignorant about the topic. Say what you want for this article coherently, so that people can understand you by reading your words, and supply reliable sources as references, not some random idiot who posted a web page.
As for you threat to disrupt Wikipedia if you do not get your way, we don't take kindly to that. If you carry through, we'll probably just protect this article so that you cannot edit it. If, however, editors from Ibibioland start disrupting the encyclopedia, we might have to put in a range block so that no-one from Ibibioland can edit any Wikipedia article. Hopefully your threat is just bluster and it won't come to that. — kwami ( talk) 07:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
http://www.maobongoku.com/maobong_mypeople_efiklang_author.htm
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
local failure Yotemordis ( talk) 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Hoax, this place does not exist, it might but not even being built yet! Yotemordis ( talk) 23:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Unaccomplished local politician, poorly sourced Yotemordis ( talk) 23:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non notable casino Yotemordis ( talk) 23:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non notable Yotemordis ( talk) 23:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. All the information here is included in the relevant articles, so this is needless duplication of information. I see no benefit in this being a separate article. I note that there do not appear to be similar articles for pop music scandals from other countries, and although this is not a reason to delete this one per se, it is an indication that there is no need for this type of list. If this article is kept, it should be re-written as a list with brief details ("xyz was sued by abc becase of mno") with links to the relevant sections in the artists' articles. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 23:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Extended/lengthy comments (largely by Standage, the article's creator, and Phantomsteve)
|
---|
I am also highly puzzled by the passion to either remove this article or water it down. There is no legitimate reason to do that. It is not wrong to ask what a person's motives are to withhold factual and documented information. That's called censorship and I think censorship stinks.
Also, at one point he gives people orders about how they should approach this debate. He falsely tells people to ignore directions about comparing articles. He falsely tells people that whether or not this article is similar to another does not matter. It does matter and wikipedia says so. This is so wrong for him to do.
This is really silly. Leave this page alone please. Let the truth be demonstrated. That's wikipedia's function. The demand that this page be deleted is so un-wikipedia that it is not even funny. arlenesgrocerygal Arlenesgrocerygal ( talk) 11:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)NOTE: This account is a confirmed sockpuppet of Standage, the article's creator ( SPI) reply Listen. I just checked the wikipedia delete page. There are four criteria for an original article. The work I did out here on this article meets ALL FOUR criteria. The guy who wants to delete this seems to be pulling criteria out of nowhere (among other things already mentioned). Honestly. I am so upset - I thought wikipedia was going to be a good and enriching experience and instead I think that some people delete for the sake of deleting or perhaps some people have hidden motives to delete or water down articles. If certain facts are potentially upsetting to some powerful people or companies, do these articles get deleted? I hope not. My final word: This article is a substantial and meaningful contributuion to wikipedia. It meets the criteria for a new article and I believe that as time goes by others will contribute to it and make it better. Or I will come out here and try to improve it when I have time. It meets the criteria to exist and it should exist as an article and not as a list (for already mentioned reasons). Thank you. I will trust in the integrity of the system here since I have enjoyed using and supporting wikipedia in the past. I feel that even if a thousand sock puppets or other creatures were to come out here to denounce or seek deletion or watering down of this article, wikipedia will do what is right. I have my fingers crossed. I am out here defending my work. This is why I was willing to fight so hard. I have to ask myself why this other guy is fighting so hard to delete this article? That doesn't make sense to me - someone even mentioned that he/she has not seen this level of "discussion" before. standage Standage ( talk) 17:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
|
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Move to wiktionary, unsourced, speculative, or Yotemordis ( talk) 23:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. De728631, you are free to either renominate or make a merge proposal on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This song does not seem notable enough for its own article. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a neologism or dictionary entry, not notable not referenced. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non notable RS song, merge with article on album or musician. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This is unreferenced and seems to be an ad for a college or amateur art project. No citations. OR. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced OR, some parlor game with no sources. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, obviously notable and nominator hasn't read the article properly (not "136th place", but "136th running of the race"). Nominator needs to slow down. Bencherlite Talk 01:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non notable and uneventful athlete whose claim to fame is coming in 136th place! super stud, not even a paragraph. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non notable game, only played on a singular TV show. Merge into that article and delete this article. Not referenced. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close, nominator indef-blocked as sockpuppet. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 02:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This topic is not of note. Super stub. OR issues. Yotemordis ( talk) 22:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation per WP:CSD#G12 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs) ( non-admin closure). Beloved Freak 11:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:N. The largest potential claims for notability are publishing books (which do not appear to be heavily cited). I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. This sounds like a successful attorney, but not a notable one by Wikipedia standards. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 23:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. postdlf ( talk) 17:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. I tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 22:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as a copyright violation of [7]. Fram ( talk) 09:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. I tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete individual places of worship are not notable, this article is not referenced at all. It has no claim to fame let alone references to back it up. Move to a Judaism in x state article perhaps? Yotemordis ( talk) 23:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 22:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Clearly, this article has no sources. JJ98 ( Talk) 22:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
BLP Prod contested with a link to a single Maxim picture and bio. Google gets a grand total of three hits, two of which are Facebook pages. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 21:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. The recent edits established notability and resulted in late consensus to keep. Orlady ( talk) 20:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
It sounds like the only notability claim is that the Rabbi who founded it was notable. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 21:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete individual places of worship are not notable, this article is not referenced at all. It has no claim to fame let alone references to back it up. Move to a Judaism in x state article perhaps? Yotemordis ( talk) 23:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This article has been created by an account whose sole purpose seems to be to add external links to pages from Eland Cables. The article is a minimal stub with no real content, except for the final sentence which makes the ridiculous claim that cables generate green electric power. The cable is a single core insulated sheathed cable: there is nothing particular special about it and the intersection with solar power is not demonstrated to be a notable topic.
Delete as nom
Spinning
Spark
20:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
Speedy delete this is an ad. Yotemordis ( talk) 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Note: Yotemordis ( talk · contribs) blocked as a sock puppet. — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Improve I can expand the article with more references. I've deleted the last sentence. Eleanor1975 ( talk) 10:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Eleanor1975 Eleanor1975 ( talk) 10:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This article has been created by an account whose sole purpose seems to be to add external links to pages from Eland Cables. The article is a minimal stub with no real content. There really is not a class of "rail cables" as such. Certainly there are many different kinds of cable that are made to meet the specifications of the rail industry but the same can be said of many other industries - aeronautic, automotive, medical etc. The intersection between cable classes and railways is not demonstrated to be a notable subject for an article.
The result was speedy delete. CSD G4. Only because actuall good faith editors have found evidence that this is a hoax. I was half tempted to delete both the article and this AFD per WP:IAR and WP:DENY. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Hoax, none of the content is
verifiable. Infobox seems to be based on the one of
Panda Energy International. Website looks like a crude hoax.
Anthem
19:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This magazine does not appear to be notable. I declined an A7 speedy as it was not merely a website. I prodded the article, but that has been challenged by the article creator (one of the magazine creators?) on the basis of notable writers included within the magazine. I am not seeing WP:RS about the magazine though, to establish WP:notability. Ladyof Shalott 18:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 20:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I've searched for sources to verify his appearances for Gimnàstic but couldn't find anything. Argyle 4 Life talk 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nom. ( non-admin closure) v/r - T P 21:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Book fails
Wikipedia:Notability_(books) and
WP:GNG. Could not find significant sources for it on a google search or any reviews other than user-generated reviews on commercial websites such as Amazon. Withdrawn per Arxiloxos v/r -
T
P
17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Discussion concerning a potential merge or redirect should continue at the talk pages of the relevant articles. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 22:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
(UPDATED) Since my nomination for deletion, it has become clear that it is the Nabro Volcano which is erupting. Nonetheless, the Nabro wiki has more than enough room to deal with this event. While there is some effect on aviation, it is limited for now. Michael5046 ( talk) 11:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep it - very little information on the web on the subject, hopefully can get more updates on it's effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.111.243 ( talk) 19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep. The article is better off to be renamed 2011 eruption of Nabro. Volcano guy 12:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I cannot find sufficient RS support for this person's notability. Tagged for notability since 2009. Epeefleche ( talk) 05:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
It is completely unnecessary to have separate article for every article of the European Convention on Human Rights. It cannot be justified on either notability or size grounds. This one is particularly bad as Article 1 isn't a substantive provision. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 20:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is about an engine that at this point is no more than someone's garage experiment. The fact that said someone gave an interview to the newsmedia 5 years ago does not make it notable for inclusion in wikipedia. Patent application was applied for. Was abandoned. At least a dozen prior claimants on the idea, most notably Dyer in 1915 and most recently Singh with two patents. Prior deletion discussion centered on existence of patent, which will never transpire. Dlw20070716 ( talk) 16:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, under criterion 1: No workable rationale for deletion has been presented. Original AfD tagger was an IP, but that IP did not leave a rationale for deletion anywhere that I could find. No prejudice against re-nomination with a valid rationale. Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't believe this page should be deleted because it is notable, has verified sources and is still fully operational. Thank you. NCSS ( talk) 00:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Rlendog ( talk) 19:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable term with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Tiamut talk 18:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This page was nominated for deletion in 2008 ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pledge of the Tree). It was kept because a number of people claimed that references for it existed. 3 years on and not one of those people have bothered to add any refs; the article remains utterly bare of any form of sourcing. William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted (CSD G5: Creations by banned or blocked users) JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
It fails WP:NALBUMS for no release date, no tracklisting and no title confirmed. Way too early to have a page. ׺°”˜`”°º× ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Resident Evil (film series)#Future. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Chiefly unreferenced. Even parts of the article which reference a source fail verification. Also fails notability mandates required by Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. Generally speaking, I and some other people in the article talk page believe this title is a rumor entirely. Fleet Command ( talk) 16:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep CBD 22:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No out-of-universe context or notability, no independent sources. Content is just OR plot. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio ( talk) 16:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Independence of the source is much less of an issue in this context as well (once you've already determined that the work is notable through independent sources), particularly since in most cases the work's own authors are going to be the most authoritative about its contents and intent. For example, you do not need to cite to the independent critic Roger Ebert for the fact that Han Solo is a character in Star Wars, or that Harrison Ford played him (and it would be silly to do so); this is easily verifiable from the film itself, or any number of official Star Wars books. As long as you're not relying on such primary sources for POV self-promotional statements, such as "Han Solo is the greatest film character ever." postdlf ( talk) 23:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Delete all. I'm a little surprised that the two deposits articles wern't discussed much, so I'd be open to a good argument to restore one or both of them and rerun the AFD on those, but there's a consensus that all three articles should be deleted here. Courcelles 01:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is almost entirely sourced to press releases. Searching GNews indicated that most coverage seemed to be sourced from the same press releases. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Badricks ( talk) 06:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No out-of-universe context or notability, no independent sources apart from 1 trivial mention. Article consists of OR plot only. Fails WP:GNG. Crusio ( talk) 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List_of_Digimon_Adventure_characters. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No out-of-universe context or notability, no independent sources apart from 1 trivial mention. Article consists of OR plot only. Fails WP:GNG. Crusio ( talk) 15:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. Only assertions of notability are appearances on blogs. No evidence of being on national music charts, appearing in reliable secondary sources, non-trivial coverage of a concert tour, major record labels, notability of the members, or any major music awards. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 14:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Article by a teenage author about his novel. No indication, and searches find none, that it meets the notability requirements of WP:Notability (books). I have included an identical article under a different title. JohnCD ( talk) 14:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Queen Mary, University of London. Consensus is that there's no basis for a standalone article. Content can be merged from the history based on subsequent editorial consensus. Sandstein 19:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This article is about a research centre at Queen Mary University. I can find no significant coverage about this research centre to establish notability. Whpq ( talk) 14:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW joe decker talk to me 20:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is not encyclopedic. Yes, DNF had a troubled and long development history. So have many other programs and games. I don't see why this needs a separate article on its own. Presumably the development section in the main DNF article got too long and they spun it off as its own article, but it's really not notable on its own. ScienceApe ( talk) 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. v/r - T P 16:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The Silk Road just isn't notable enough to have its own article. The only references anyone has been able to provide are a Gawker blog article and a passing reference on a Guardian blog. Heck, we're still not entirely sure that it isn't just a hoax, so verifiability is another big issue here. Cyde Weys 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by JamesBWatson ( talk · contribs) per A10; redundant with Thiemassassians. Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 14:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Thiemassassian seems to be a new term that is not generally used. While I have found references to Thillmans. Descamps and Khayat here and other places on google scholar, none of them use the term. Thiemassassian only appears in general google searches on wikipedia and mirrors. noq ( talk) 14:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:N, WP:V--Unable to find any sources for this actor/director, but it's possible I'm being tripped up by a language barrier and not having a translations of his name outside of English. Some claims of potential notability if they could be verified. Additional sources welcomed. joe decker talk to me 14:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This website is relatively new and not very notable to have a Wikipedia article. Its Facebook page has less than 80 fans, so hardly anyone uses the website or even know about it or its founder. Almost all of the information in this article was added by the founder himself, User:Robgrantn, with no reliable sources. He even tried to create a Wikipedia article about himself and he is nowhere close to being notable enough for that, being just a 21-year-old law student from New York. The founder is my elementary school classmate and had the audacity of unfriending me on Facebook when I tried to help him improve the article. I know he worked hard with adding all that information, but the website is just not significant enough to have a Wikipedia article at this time. This article belongs more on a Law or Website Wiki like this one, not an encyclopedia. This is not the place to promote a new company. The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Objectively, a former classmate who was "unfriended" on Facebook shouldn't qualify as the person recommending deletion of an article. This seems like a malicious attack over a bruised ego rather than an unbiased review of content.
For the record, I submitted most of the content for the information on the page not Robert Niznik. If the site needs work, than I am happy to add or change what is required. The page had been approved and was growing and improving until your ego got bruised.
This 21 year old, Robert Niznik was in the Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, and the Economist. He was most recently interviewed by NBC News about the PROCESS he has employed via vie Shpoonkle. The site is about promoting advocacy and the condition of the Legal Environment today and not an advertisement. The site and service has been in over 600 renowned international publications in less than ninety days. To my knowledge the amount of fans you have on Facebook should not and is not a criteria of notability. The website has over 2000 registered users and has thousands of page visits a day which is considered substantial.
The article has citations from notable sources, its objective about the services offered, and also follows Wikipedia's guidelines. You actually wrote to Robert (see email below) telling him not to worry that the page just needed some clean up and would be fine. So because this person is no longer a Facebook friend your using your position with Wikipedia to have this article deleted? Not only is not ethical and a misuse of the fiduciary responsibilities Wikipedia has entrusted in you it is just plain wrong. The purpose of the article was not promotion of the company but to educate of a process and service that is FREE and trying to help people.
This is the message you sent Robert Niznik on June 8th 2011 at 8:25:
___________________________________________________Winson Thai June 8 at 8:25pm Report
The article will NOT be deleted just because of the template. I put it there so you and the people who work for your company will know that it still needs a lot of work (heck, you did not even include a link to the site at the bottom of the page). Just keep improving the page and you can remove the template. No worries.
_____________________________________________________________
We made the changes you suggested and then you marked it for deletion because he didn't want to be your Facebook Friend anymore? I am asking the Wikipedia community to help me stop people like this from using their personal agendas in this forum/site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierceenigma ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — Fierceenigma ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Article does not attribute reliable secondary sources and does not assert any notability. ( WP:V, WP:N). I could not locate any sources. Marasmusine ( talk) 14:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. v/r - T P 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
There is virtually no significant coverage of the concept of an 'executive summary' to be found. The reasons given for the removal of the PROD were that (a) the term is used a lot, ie. WP:ITEXISTS; and (b) the term produces many results on Google, ie. WP:GHITS. An attempt earlier today to flesh it out merely resulted in two examples of executive summaries being added; one from the State Department and one from the IEA. While moderately interesting, these don't substantiate the notability of executive summaries conceptually. This page is treated as a reference, although it is simply a short and glorified how-to-guide/dicdef.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary and unless there is any detailed coverage of this topic, the article will never progress beyond being a slightly wishy-washy definition page. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Syndic General─╢ 13:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Userfy to User:Patel almitra/Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India. v/r - T P 15:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Copy and pasted from [www.almitrapatel.com/docs/055.doc]; contested CSD; it's not an encylopedic article; it's more like a combination between advertisement and how-to-guide. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Share– a– Power [citation needed] 12:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Copyright concerns - now resolved
|
---|
|
"Indians have a remarkably small ecological footprint compared to citizens in advanced countries." (followed by various statistics)
"On the technical front, some research is currently going on to make PVCs degradable through the blending of biopolymer components. This is disastrous."
"Micro-packaging sachets are the most needed and most promising mass market for biopolymers."
"A money-making racket is going on in cities like Pune, where degradable bags are required to be used for biomedical waste management."
There's also a problem with the time constructs, words and phrases like "is going on", "now", "may soon be", "recent", "currently", etc.. These have no concrete time reference. The article was published 8 years ago, making these phrases meaningless, and also making the assertions containing them potentially out of date. I personally found the article very interesting. I'm wondering if a more appropriate place to put it would be Wikiversity, another a Wikimedia Foundation project which does accept material like this. Voceditenore ( talk) 06:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Patel almitra ( talk) 05:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Ghost Writer for edits! reply
Whoops! I see that you have now moved the page back into article space under a new title Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India. I've fixed the double re-direct, and adjusted the links on this AfD page and at the new page. But please don't make anymore page moves until the AfD is closed. The current new title will eventually have to be fixed if the AfD decision is to keep rather than userfy. It should be Plastic recycling and biopolymers in India to conform with capitalisation of titles and the standard spelling of biopolymers on Wikipedia. but let an adminstrator sort it out. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 07:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Copyright concerns - now resolved
|
---|
I hereby affirm that [I, Almitra Patel am] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [Work on Solid waste Management in India which are in the form of essays under the titles of Waste Policy in India Plastics Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers articles, at http://www.almitrapatel.com/swm.htm, and http://www.almitrapatel.com/plastics_roads.htm] I agree to [publish these works under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (almitrapatel@rediffmail.com)] [SENDER'S AUTHORITY (Copyright Holder for http://www.almitrapatel.com/)] [DATE (14/06/2011)] Patel almitra ( talk) 10:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani reply
I certify that OTRS permission is confirmed in ticket 2011061410006865. – Adrignola talk 16:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply |
Thank you Bearian, for your vote of confidence. We shall strive to make better edits and meet the standards Wiki demands. Shall look at the articles you have mentioned and see where this one can be slotted in. Patel almitra ( talk) 05:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Ghost Writer for edits! reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This scouting badge does not seem to meet
the general notability guideline, due to a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources.
Anthem
11:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Hoax Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't find no reliable and independent evidence confirming that this person ever existed. During its short existence here on Wikipedia, the article became a target of really strange editing, see for example this. I asked the article's creator for explanation, but I received no answer. I'm sorry to say that, but I suspect a hoax. Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 11:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Procedural keep. This can be immediately relisted. v/r - T P 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Plot only coverage of a fictional topic, which does not meet the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple third party sources. Anthem 11:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Procedural keep, this can be immediately relisted. v/r - T P 14:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Plot only coverage of a fictional aircraft carrier. Additionally, the subject of the articles fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources on the topic. Anthem 11:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any discriminative major databases. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals Crusio ( talk) 10:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This person is probably fictional. The cited sources do not seem to exist (and given their publication dates cannot possibly cover much of the article). The bio reads like a series of lame jokes. On the talk page, a comment suggests that the character has been made up by Andre Vincent which sounds more plausible than anything in this article. Rl ( talk) 09:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Powerpuff Girls. v/r - T P 14:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Only two references, this article does not meet the episode's notability. JJ98 ( Talk) 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:GNG. for a recent festival nothing in gnews and nothing in a major Australian news service [63]. LibStar ( talk) 07:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 07:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in secondary sources makes this obscure section of an obscure Australian standard non-notable. The article is just a summary of the regulation, not an encyclopedia. This article appears to have been created as part of a university project; see this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for related articles. bou·le·var·dier ( talk) 06:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete Unencyclopedic compliance guide. Nothing that seems to pass GNG. Nothing significantly salvageable. Lord Vetinari 07:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in secondary sources makes this obscure section of an obscure Australian standard non-notable. The article is just a summary of the regulation, not an encyclopedia. This article appears to have been created as part of a university project; see this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for related articles. bou·le·var·dier ( talk) 06:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete Unencyclopedic compliance guide. Nothing that seems to pass GNG. Nothing significantly salvageable. Lord Vetinari 07:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 07:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in secondary sources makes this obscure section of an obscure Australian standard non-notable. The article is just a summary of the regulation, not an encyclopedia. This article appears to have been created as part of a university project; see this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for related articles. bou·le·var·dier ( talk) 06:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete Unencyclopedic compliance guide. Nothing that seems to pass GNG. Nothing significantly salvageable. Lord Vetinari 07:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Changing close to delete per series of AfDs on this subject v/r - T P 14:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in secondary sources makes this obscure section of an obscure Australian standard non-notable. The article is just a summary of the regulation, not an encyclopedia. Nothing worth merging into the main article - indeed similar content was deleted from that main article. This article appears to have been created as part of a university project; see this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for related articles. Contested PROD. bou·le·var·dier ( talk) 06:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete or Merge Unencyclopedic compliance guide. Nothing that seems to pass GNG and warrants a separate article. Lord Vetinari 07:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Still unsourced (and, it seems, unsourceable) after nearly sixseven years. No improvement since the first AFD 3 years ago. Arguments that members also played in other bands of similar obscurity and with a similar lack of coverage seemed to win the argument last time, but how long are we going to keep an unsourced, unverifiable article like this?
Michig (
talk)
05:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [65] and nothing in a major Australian news website [66]. those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 07:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Without prejudice to recreation if RS'ing for 1974 Asian Games is found. joe decker talk to me 00:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I'm guessing he represented Iran at the 1974 Asian Games that were held in Iran, but I can't find any evidence of this. Happy to withdraw the nomination or recreate if proof that he was in the team at a significant competition is able to be found. The-Pope ( talk) 12:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Jump5. v/r - T P 14:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No other member of Jump5 has a personal article, and he has no other major contributions to the industry Christiefan1 ( talk) 23:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Minor league baseball player who fails Wikipedia:MLB/N. Albacore ( talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Has released one "album" since 2005. Said album only contains 3 tracks on it, none of which have charted from what I can see. I have found it difficult to establish the notability of this person through reliable sources. Of the sources listed in the article, they either fall into not reliable, nor not independent of the subject. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:RECENTISM;
WP:NOTNEWS; Non notable event, no casualties, no deaths, no damage. Though it caused some damage, I don't think it is worthy of having an article on Wikipedia. At the very least, merge with
2011 Christchurch earthquake
Diego Grez (
talk)
03:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
Delete as per OP's reasoning. The cited policies exist for a reason and having pages on non notable news events does harm wikipedia Noformation Talk 04:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete Ajraddatz, it harms us in that it is an example of turning Wikipedia into a news source. This website is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and as such, it needs to fit the criteria in WP:NOTNEWS, as stated above. The way the article is written is irrelevant, this discussion is about the subject of the article. This earthquake, while tragic, is a news event, not an encyclopedic event. Bstbll ( talk) 05:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
At very worst, Merge it into the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Nath1991 ( talk) 09:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep, SMH reports ~50 buildings collapsed. This is clearly a major event. [67] -- Xaliqen ( talk) 10:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep: It is a new chapter in a sequence of events dating to Sep 2010, as a major event in the cycle it warrants its own page, particularly notable for a rapid sequence of severe shocks causing significant further damage to already fragile structures, multiple injuries and fresh damage to already repaired infrastructure. The event is four months from the Feb quake and which was four months from the Sept quake, and will trigger it's own sequence of aftershocks over the next few days. Over 50 buildings collapsed in the CBD. So KEEP. 118.136.208.35 ( talk) 11:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/canterbury-earthquake/77629/more-significant-quakes-rock-canterbury http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/06/20116134130249928.html 118.136.208.35 ( talk) 11:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
-- Stormchaser89 ( talk) 11:56am, 13 June 2011 (US central time)
Strong Keep: One fatality, an old man who fell over an was knocked unconcious in the quake and later died. Around 45 injuries, significant further damage to the city, at 6.3 the main shock was of the same magnitude as the Feb 22 quake, the latest quake was on a fault not linked to the Feb 22 event, so it's a new event in a cycle of quakes striking the city. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/christchurch-wakes-to-50-earthquake-20110615-1g2b4.html 118.136.208.35 ( talk) 01:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This should stay, because one person was killed and it caused more damage, including a few buildings collapsing. If it happened in America then of course it would stay, so why not New Zealand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.58.80 ( talk) 03:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The company is very borderline on notability. There are some mentions in local media and minor media, no major coverage. Only source given is the company's website. Article is written in a general promotional tone, although it is not promotional enough to qualify for g11. Delete Safiel ( talk) 03:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Was tagged and blanked as a possible
attack page. Several admins, including me, are unsure what to do here (See:
Talk:Slash (bahrani)). The page has been left blanked as a precaution - see history to view contents.(content restored according to AfD template policy). The community should decide what should be done.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
03:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I am unable to find any reliable source coverage to establish notability. A link to ancestry.ca is the only source on the article, and that is behind a paywall. But in any case, it is a user generated content site, which even if it was available to the general public would still not constitute a reliable source. I am able to locate a few other similar user generated geneology site mentions as well, but those also do not appear to be reliable sources from a Wikipedia perspective. I am happy to withdraw this nomination if significant notability can be established through reliable sources. But as it stands now since I have been unable to locate them, this appears to not warrant an article. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 20:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to support the notability of this person, whose article has been tagged for notability for some time now. Epeefleche ( talk) 00:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:Notability, specifically fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There is no significant, sustained coverage of this company in any independent sources. A couple brief mentions exist (e.g. [71]) but the criteria call for more than that. Suggested search strings: Hyperformance + engine, Hyperformance + v-twin, Hyperformance + Harley, Hyperformance + racing, Hyperformance + Iowa, etc. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
There are no sources listed and none found to verify the authenticity or accuracy of this list. It was deprodded with claims of notability and because similar lists exist, yet lists like this aren't subject to notability but they are subject to verifiability. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 01:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Zero refs. Tagged for notability since 2009. Epeefleche ( talk) 04:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I've checked, and cannot myself find sufficient evidence of notability in the coverage of this band by reliable sources (though there is limited coverage). This article was considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveling Circle. Only 1 other editor -- an IP -- participated in the discussion. The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Epeefleche ( talk) 03:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Here are some more articles on Traveling Circle:
http://psychedelicbaby.blogspot.com/2011/05/traveling-circle-interview.html http://www.fileunder.nl/archives/2011/02/traveling_circle_handmade_house_1.php http://www.thedelimagazine.com/FeatureView.php?artist=travelingcircle http://mratavist.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/traveling-circle-handmade-house/ http://www.dreun.com/CdDetail.asp?Id_cd=5724 http://mratavist.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/traveling-circle-comes-around-interview/ http://wine-women-song.blogspot.com/2010/10/handmade-house-by-traveling-circle.html http://sonyudum.blogspot.com/2010/10/gunun-parcas-traveling-circle-note-rops.html http://www.kreetik.com/1/post/2010/9/interview-with-joshua-schultz-of-traveling-circle.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.131 ( talk) 18:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Traveling Circle exists and this is evidenced by their release on Nasoni Records out of Berlin. Yes, they are an underground band and some may think they're not 'notable' or 'significant'. But underground is a historic phenomenon and thus has a place in any encyclopaedia, especially an online one like wikipedia. And I can't believe someone is splitting hairs over the fact that Traveling Circle hasn't completed their second album yet as a requirement to be on wikipedia. They are currently working with Gordon Raphael (The Strokes producer) to release their second album. So even if someone deletes this page, I guess we'll just try to put it back up again when the second album is complete to keep things 'notable' and 'significant'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArkSon ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply
COMMENT: Both the Aquarian Weekly and Deli Magazine articles above appeared in their print editions. Upcoming article in the Italian print-only publication Vincebus Eruptum is forthcoming. Here is a link to the last issue: http://www.vincebuseruptum.it/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=139&Itemid=64 That makes at least three print articles. Thanks.
I believe with both an album on a significant independent record label and published articles covering the band both on the web and in print, this article satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. Could somebody please post a link to the criteria for including an entry on a band? I have read them previously but was not currently able to locate them though I made an effort to do so. I recall both of the above points to be among them. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.131 ( talk) 20:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Voice (U.S. TV series). Going out on a limb a bit here. The nom is a good one, and neither of the Keep votes adequately rebut it. Given that the AfD has already been relisted twice, the obvious "compromise" is to redirect to the parent show (as we normally do for non-winners or otherwise notable contestants). This also maintains the edit history should Ms.Elise become obviously notable in the future. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. This is a contestant in a reality television show, who as of this writing has yet to be named a winner (which is, as we all already know, the bare minimum that Wikipedia requires for deeming a reality show contestant to be notable; contestants are not normally entitled to articles just for being contestants.) The article also has no reliable, independent sources to demonstrate notability outside of this context; all of its sources (including the ones that led the creator to feel entitled to deprod) are directly affiliated with either Ms. Elise herself or the program. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 00:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 04:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This Disney employee was named a Disney Legend, but that honor does not appear to be particularly notable (considering all the redlinked honorees). Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Not a notable person per WP:BIO. The article has only primary sources, or secondary sources with self-published material. The only real secondary source I found was this, which reports on all things Greek-Canadian. I wouldn't say it's a very good source. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasia Tubanos. It appears this article, with the nickname added, was created to prevent it from getting summarily deleted for recreation. Like all articles concerning Matt Campagna and company (this is his girlfriend or something), who in the past has frequently used Wikipedia as a vehicle for free advertisement and continues to do so, this article was created and almost solely edited by themselves. Atlan ( talk) 11:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 22:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Previous AFD closed as no consensus with no participation last year. There is simply no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The best I could manage is a local magazine listing them in a list of classical events in the Washington DC area. Whpq ( talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Unable to locate significant reliable source coverage indicating notability. Both of the "reviews" cited by the article are much too short to be significant and are more comparable to mere directory entries; the sources' independence is also questionable. I was unable to locate any other reliable source coverage of this software; it thus fails the WP:GNG. Cybercobra (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't like to see articles about free software be deleted because they are often useful for people seeking them out, regardless of notability criteria. Such programs get very little notice from third parties, in general, unless the program's author makes an effort to solicit such notice, so the usual criteria amounts to how much self-promotion has been done. However, the stub being considered for deleting in this case has so little content, and the program appears to be so marginally useful that little would be lost by the deletion. Dlw20070716 ( talk) 23:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Declined as a PROD and BLPPROD'd before I arrived at the article, I was obliged to decline the BLPPROD based on that policy's strict nomination criteria. I added the passing reference I found when I looked myself, but was unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide significant coverage of this presenter, which suggests that the article does not meet the general notability guideline. 3rd time at AfD, the last one was a delete in 2008, I'd suggest consideration of the question of whether salt should be applied here, I don't have a strong opinion on that. -- joe decker talk to me 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, non-existent MMO. Any notability is derived from the fact that this game essentially became Flickr, with no independent notability. Sourced from fan pages and rumors, and even then there is no content. Certainly deserving of a footnote in the Flickr page (it is already mentioned there), but does not meet our criteria for inclusion on its own. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. Fails WP:V. Zero reliable sources/non-trivial mentions -- AbsolutDan (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a prime example of a software page that is useful but fails the (currently flawed) wikipedia guidelines for notability as applied to software. Wikipedia will be diminished in its usefulness to the software community by removing this article, merely because the software author has failed to solicit third party reviews. I consider it a strong example of why the wikipedia notability criteria needs to be amended for free software. Dlw20070716 ( talk) 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close pending outcome of RFC/ArbCom case. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Attack page on Rick Santorum. Needs to be blanked and deleted per Policy. KoshVorlon ' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply
KoshVorlon ' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters. v/r - T P 14:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
No independent sources, no out-of-universe notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio ( talk) 14:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply