The result was keep. For all the words in this debate, the consensus is quite clear that the article is to be kept. Mkativerata ( talk) 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Polish dictionary word, non-encyclopedic, not notable, not suitable for English wikipedia. Relevant policies:
WP:ENGLISH
WP:DICTIONARY (see my comment at my vote below) --
Lysy
talk 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
reply
<- Ok, I don't know why this has to be repeated, but it's obvious that Polish linguists will study the etymology of Polish words - and you can find sources (in Polish) to that effect. That is NOT enough to show notability for the purposes of English Wikipedia, IMO.
But let's come back to this " coverage in numerous, reliable sources" - IT'S NOT THERE. Malick78 filled up the article with a bunch of junk he found on the internet consisting of things like:
The last two, or even four, are just random usages of the word out there in the internets. They are not reliable and they most certainly do not show notability - just the fact that people actually use this word sometimes (crazy!)
What's left after you remove this junk? What are these supposed "dozens" or "numerous" reliable sources?
That's it. Of these only one can be considered both relevant and reliable, the Pirog article, though certainly not "high quality reliable source". And even that article is mostly about racism in Poland and only deals with the word in a minor manner. It's sort of as if you found an article on Racism in US, which discusses the word "black" and used that as a basis for creating an article on Black (word for black people) or something, rather than the appropriate article on Racism in US or Black people.
The tv interview is borderline - if this was really a notable article topic and there really were "numerous" or "dozens" (as people here keep erroneously asserting) of other sources on it, then I'd probably support it's inclusion. But there are no "numerous" or "dozens" of other sources - at best you got 1 - so by itself this doesn't cut it. Volunteer Marek 17:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, with salt. The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I could not find a single reliable source covering the game. Delete per WP:GNG. Author contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 ( talk) 22:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
note—check article history if things look weird, article creator just removed afd template, although i restored it. (and warned) — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 23:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 21. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I've been following this new article for several days, but the editors keep adding things which do not address the tags. To me, this article reads like in-universe propaganda for the UFO religion Urantia, and does not make any claim why this particular section is significant or notable using reliable 3rd party sources. Therefore, I'm nominating it for deletion. AstroCog ( talk) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD on the grounds of notability. I proposed deletion six days ago NOT because of notability, but because the article is a content fork of San Antonio Talons, as most of the text is copied from San Antonio Talons. The team was formerly known as the Tulsa Talons. Tampabay721 ( talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Completely different from, and slightly better than the article on this title deleted by the previous AfD discussion. But it still seems too much like a student essay. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Author's Comments Keep
EmpowerTMs, it might be a great new idea that shouldn't be in WIkipedia. The relevant standard is wp:notability. If you think there is coverage of the type required by the policy, you should put that in or un-obscure it quickly. Unless/until then I think this should be deleted. If something changes, please feel free to ping me on my talk page. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 00:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Full disclosure: I did !vote in this AfD, however the snow has fallen, so, closing. The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
After Geo Swan contested the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 28#Jeffrey H. Norwitz, Zscout370 restored the article, writing:The administrator who deleted it did so after processing OTRS ticket 2009011410017732. The deleting administrator and I corresponded. They acknowledged that the article had been neutrally written, otherwise complied with all our policies, that Norwitz had no actual complaints about the article. The deleting administrator told me Norwitz simply didn't want a wikipedia article. The deleting administrator told me that their interpretation of the role of an OTRS team member that they felt they were authorized to delete articles to comply with an outside individual's request, when, in their sole judgment, the individual was of marginal notability. I don't agree that Norwitz was of marginal notability in January 2009. Since the deletion Norwitz has published another book. He has broadcast youtube videos. He has made more public appearances. So I think his notability is even more clear cut now.
... For what it is worth there are lots of biographies of Norwitz scattered around the web. So it is not as if Norwitz was trying to reduce his online footprint in order to protect his privacy because he was an interrogator at Guantanamo. Rather Norwitz just doesn't want a biography on wikipedia.
— User:Geo Swan 08:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Restored at the time I did the deletion in 2009, I was the one that handled the OTRS ticket. My mindset at the time was to err on the side of caution and have short articles like this removed. Geo has been speaking to me off and on since the deletion and I agree that the content itself is neutral, but still at the time of deletion I was in that mindset. Now close to being the end of 2011, I was a n00b and realized it was not the best course of action now. After speaking to more OTRS staff since the DR was brought up, they felt that it would be wise to restore the material and let a regular AFD deal with the subject.
— User:Zscout370 17:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for deletion to allow discussion about whether the page should be deleted per the subject's request. This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Cunard ( talk) 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. AfD'd within the hour of creation...tsk. WP:DANNO The Bushranger One ping only 00:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:1EVENT. Avenue X at Cicero ( talk) 17:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 23:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is original research, predicated on Wikipedia editor's research indicating that these four players have "made the cut to foreign club." ScottyBerg ( talk) 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Based on the citation that was just added to the article, [25], I'm convinced now that the article is not based on original research. However, I have strong doubts that the article in its present form is the correct way to go. I agree that a list might be better. ScottyBerg ( talk) 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Overcategorization. I can't see that language is an appropriate defining characteristic for a list of singers. The fact that they're male? Definitely not. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 16:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NEOLOGISM -- a term that gets zero relevant gnews hits (the uses of "Yollies" which appear in archives are not for this usage). All sources cited in article written by same pair of collaborators. Article writer appears to be a promo account for the think tank publishing these writers. Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
This is an essay with highly dubious sourcing. None of the independent reliable sources used mention Brigham Young University in any way. Sources that do mention Brigham are either not independent or not reliable by any standard (for example, the title of a facebook group). I do not believe dating and marriage at this university is a notable article subject and most of the material seems to be wp:synthesis based on statistical data Yoenit ( talk) 15:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I placed a prod template on this for lack of independent sourcing - the article author has removed that template and not added any sources, so here we are at AFD. The only sources in the article are to the company's own site, to a press release about a sports team they are sponsoring, or don't actually pention Xendpay. I've searched and I cannot find additional sourcing. MrOllie ( talk) 15:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was consensus chose the freedom to delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
A strange article – bits of it are referenced to reliable sources, but it is basically just an opinion piece/personal essay. This is a violation of policy: WP:NOTESSAY. The interesting thing is that the term is used in scholarly sources, but I can find no actual significant coverage of the term, which is what's required by the general notability guideline. Happy to be proven wrong, but at the moment it is a violation of policy and shows no evidence of being notable. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus - normally WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL would apply, but it appears the game is beyond the design stage. The article is still under construction, so userfication is also appropriate and does not required AfD. Bearian ( talk) 16:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Game that has only been announced (since 2009, release predicted for Q2 2012 at the moment), but hasn't been released and hasn't received significant attention in reliable, independent sources, so fails our notability guideline. Searching for the game, but excluding their own site, only returns 85 distinct Google hits [28], many of those from Wikipedia, flickr, alexa, or the game studio itself. No Google News (archive) hits. Fram ( talk) 14:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Disputed speedy CSD:A7, disputed prod. This article makes no assertion of the notability of the organization, and it does not meet the guidelines of WP:CORP. As a sniff test, it gets exactly zero hits on Google Books, for example. Wtshymanski ( talk) 13:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
PROD declined procedurally due to previous AfD. The article is almost identical to the last revision before the previous AfD and thus this could really have G4. Zero reliable sources with which to establish notability, particularly any evidence that the band or works pass WP:MUSIC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8)#Sophie Habibis. Exercising a bit of discretion here, seems like what I have put down is a more specific target. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Contestant from The X Factor (UK series 8) who is not notable at the present time, having not even qualified for the live finals yet. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Regarding your above comment, I beleive she has met section 9 of WP:MUSICBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.160.171 ( talk) 10:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I could not find any reliable source covering this event. It is promotion of a brand new event. Delete per WP:GNG. Contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 ( talk) 12:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Meets CSD criterion A7 for organizations. causa sui ( talk) 21:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
no indication of notability - speedy deleted several times already as purely promotional. Google searches produce no significant secondary sources. noq ( talk) 12:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Move to History of horse domestication theories and expand. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The theory appears to be non-notable, if not entirely non-existent. A google books search for "four foundations theory" gets exactly one hit, to a "book" which is actually a compilation of articles from ... Wikipedia. "four+foundations+theory" Worldcat, 0 hits; JSTOR, 0 results; Google scholar, 0 results. Searching the principal source cited in the article, Bennett's Conquerors, for the string "four foundations" in Google books gives no result (which may of course be due to shortcomings in Google). Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
After thinking a bit more about this, I think we maybe can find a more constructive solution here. What we know is that the single origin/multiple origin has been a debate for many many years, and the end conclusion was that both ideas were true (stallions single origin, mares multiple origins), albeit without the explicit link between appearance and breed types. This debate has been discussed in length in many many papers, and it was only solved in this century after DNA sequencing became very wide spread. It has been named many things, one alternative example is monophyly versus polyphyly. I think the best solution would be have an article detailing this debate, and have summary statements in the relevant articles. As a name, we can think of something like "Single versus multiple origins debate in horse domestication". That would be a more inclusive article and provide much more information about the topic than the current rather narrow article. Any thoughts? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax, as IMDb link provided is a dead link and no Sean Treadaway exists on their site. Even if it isn't a hoax, no significant roles or coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope ( talk) 11:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BAND 1-6 and 8-12. No evidence provided that the band meets point 7 either. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 10:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:ORG. Submitted on behalf of User:Domenico.y per this. JFHJr ( ㊟) 06:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the existence, or lack of existence of this guitarist. Apparently there is a question on that point, e.g., [38], not that that's a particularly reliable set of data either. No evidence of notability under GNG nor MUSICBIO. Additiona sources welcome, as always. joe decker talk to me 06:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
also nominating:
all fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. routine non notable sporting results. LibStar ( talk) 05:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. This is a case where we have a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources, but whether it is significant is open to debate. Many of them deal with iClothing as their primary subject, and when dealing with companies and their founders WP:INHERITED is always case-by-case. In this discussion, I did not find a consensus over this matter. Meanwhile, WP:COI and WP:BLP are non-issues with regards to deletion. First of all the COI allegations are speculation, and even if they were true, the article should stay if the subject is notable. BLP violations, if any, can be addressed by removing unsourced content from the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Fashionista subject is not notable per the following: guidelines:
After significant cleanup per WP:BIO, WP:SOURCES, and WP:BLP the article content indicates its subject is not notable in an encyclopedic way. Some media coverage has been given to the subject's clothing line as a concept, but a stand-alone article for this individual as a subject is not supported by that scant coverage. Having removed interested parties from references, the facts they asserted, and assertions unsupported by any citations, the article reads like a brief social media profile. JFHJr ( ㊟) 05:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Hi JFHJr,
Reichman is not a Fashionista, she is a fashion entrepreneur [1]. Her iClothing brand and her Being Born Again Couture mark that.
You have "cleaned up the article" in such a way that it is very obscure and there is nothing left of Reichman except a few lines which by itself aren't notable.
I don't know if I could do this, because I am new, but could I roll back your "cleanup" to the one before you "edited", therefore Reichman is notable once again?
Thank you. Domenico.y ( talk) 06:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y — Domenico.y ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
"verifiable through reliable third-party sources" - interviewers and magazines interviewed Reichman for her notability and her fashion entrepreneurship for her founding of iClothing and she changed the course of history for 2 Australian fashion designers with Being Born Again Couture (which you took out).
Where are those cites of ABC News (America), CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), Gizmodo, www.news.com.au (Australia), 360Fashion, Fashion ONE TV, Channel 7 & Channel 9 (Australia), ChanceTV (NYC), Veja TV (Latino) and NDTV (China)?
She is Australian but she moved to New York City to make a name in the fashion industry which is mighty hard and she has. Please roll back the changes that you have made so others can comment on her notability. Domenico.y ( talk) Domenico.y —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC). reply
Ok, thanks - the references have been removed by a little pixie I think! I will edit the references back in but tomorrow evening. Thank you for your time. Domenico.y ( talk) 07:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
Wall Street Journal or News.com.au, a subsidiary of News Limited or Womens Mafia or Artmonthsydney not reliable? You have got to be kidding, JFHJr. Since when can that be faked or not reliable? I will edit the article again to ensure the references by NOTABLE publications are available for everyone to see. Domenico.y ( talk) 20:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
I disagree - Reichman created and founded iClothing, facilitating them. She created a new technology-fashion instrument. How many of you out there have done that please? Please see the video on news.com.au and read the article on The Wall Street Journal, if you haven 't already. Who's to say what is well known? Are you Australian? Do you consider the Mornings with Kerri-Anne "notable"? The population of Australia tunes in every morning to watch that show and it is on every workstation TV in consultancy's around Australia. As for ABC TV, that is notable because they are in every country. They take off old links from the past 6 months every year to make room for more content. There was a link on ABC TV's Art Nation but now it appears to be gone. Shall I cite dead link but somehow get the archived old copy? Please look at the images from the Being Born Again Show and compare them to the images on the different sites - they are exactly the same, Lo Sordo and Fenitti created garments with Reichman's assistance and influence. Thanks Domenico.y ( talk) 20:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
Ok, hold on please {{hold}}
Domenico.y (
talk) 21:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
reply
P.S. I take it you don't know about fashion, but when people influence 2 major fashion designers, it's notable, no matter what country they are from. The designers may not have mentioned this, but through photos and references, we can see that. That is the sole reason I kept in those references. Now I have to really go catch the train for work. I will be back online in 13 hours' time.
Thank you for respecting that {{hold}}
tag.
Domenico.y (
talk) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
reply
Dear JFHJr,
If you please look at the photographic evidence, you will see. "influenced" - it does not need to say that when looking at those images. Please look and see and then you will note that it is correct in saying that Reichman influenced. I am busy finding articles after work - please let me finish work. And hold off editing till I get off work because it is unfair. Admin - can you do something here please to put a hold on the article? Domenico.y ( talk) 22:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
— 68.175.22.238 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi,
I was researching last night and came across this article: http://www.textileglobal.com/2010/05/the-fashion-group-international-of-sydney-presentation-interpreting-trends-aw-2010.html and in here is the I think proof I am searching for: "Davina created & facilitated the Michael Lo Sordo & Chris Horder collaboration for Rosemount Australian Fashion Week. Michael is using Chris’ prints for his fashion collection this season." - it is not a blog, it is textileglobal.com.
I could have sworn I put this in the first place, but I can't find it. Is this necessary proof? What JFHJr is concerned about I have speculation, not proof and he is right because I failed to put in that article it seems, but I think this is proof? Then I can put in the references of the photo of Imbruglia wearing Lo Sordo print, that runway.comms article and the ArtMonth article referenced? I don't know if I am allowed to do this though because there is too many 'deletes' already? Thank you. Domenico.y ( talk) 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Domenico.y reply
Both editors seem to have differing points of view in Talk:Davina_Reichman#Comment_and_action.3F.
Conclusion: In any case: Christopher Horder [48] is famous Australian artist which exhibits in Liverpool Street Gallery, Sydney, Australia. [49] Michael Lo Sordo is a famous Australian fashion designer. After the Being Born Again Couture in April, Lo Sordo received heaps of press in regards to the prints (which were collaborated by Christopher Horder) which Reichman 'created and facilitated'. Lo Sordo was showing in Australian Fashion Week using those very prints in May.
Now even for ArtMonth, Sydney Australia says "Gallery Talk: Christopher Horder and fashion designer Michael Lo Sordo discuss their collaboration for Rosemount Australian Fashion Week 2010." [50] They collaborated for Australian Fashion Week [51] " Christoper Horder's CV reads"...Being Born Again Couture, collaboration with fashion designer Michael Lo Sordo" [52] and there is of course facebook [53]
"Reichman created and facilitated a Michael Lo Sordo and Chris Horder collaboration project for Australian Fashion Week" (according to JFHJr is the correct citing of the text) Textile Global, The Fashion Group International of Sydney Presentation Interpreting Trends Autumn Winter 2010, [54], May 27 2010
(It is much easier to put the text on the AfD for Reichman, because only 2 editors commented and 2 out of possibly 100 editors is not the majority.)
Domenico.y ( talk) 17:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
Hi JFHJr,
Why did you remove my text when you said to do "Reichman created and facilitated a Michael Lo Sordo and Chris Horder collaboration project for Australian Fashion Week"? with that reference? I do not understand. On wikipedia, it says that you should not remove anything without explaining it fully. I have let that slide as I am sure you have a good reason for it, but this isn't offering me help to improve the article and what I had asked for initially is assistance and help and only a few you of editors have provided that. Thank you. Domenico.y ( talk) 18:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
Regarding notability JFHJr What makes a fashion designer "notable"? It is because you say so in many posts that Lo Sordo and Finetti are not notable? In Australia, they are notable, they just don't have wikipedia pages. The fact that someone isn't "noteable" in other countries besides Australia does not mean they are not notable in that country.
For example, why did ConcernedConcernedVancouverite, another editor with the same privileges as you all, remove "COI" in the Being Born Again Couture Fashion show article but they did not remove that in any other place like for example in the Hugh Evans (humanitarian), Davina Reichmann or Anina (model), after I said that I have no relation or do not promote any articles I am editing? Confused.
I meant to say in the post while 2 editors agree on this point, can we see what the 98 or other editors say *before* you delete my edits please.
Reasons being: I can see from comparing the images that Lo Sordo and Fenitti's designs that they are the same or similar etc, but JFHJr would not have that as "proof" because it did not say "influenced", even though I cited a bunch of articles which intimated(?) that Reichmann may have "something to do with" Lo Sordo and Finetti choosing those particular artists to "copy" and make their Australian Fashion Week range out of (and yes, fb is not a source).
Fashion is subjective in some parts, not objective, take the designer houses "Louboutin vs YSL" case which was fought in court, so that is why I asked initially that could anyone please find someone that knows fashion and that can comment on fashion to assist.
Domenico.y ( talk) 20:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
The result was delete. Whilst there is a general consensus to delete, with around 2/3 of the votes going that way, there are further factors in play. First of all, a number of votes are weak. Merely pointing out that "the article has lots of sources" isn't a good argument in this particular discussion, and of the course votes along the lines of "it's notable" , or "deleting would be censorship" are of course given less weight. That's not to say there are not weak Delete votes as well - there are; there appears to be little evidence that this article is synthesis or original research, and NPOV is usually grounds for fixing, not deleting. However, the argument that was pivotal here was the one first pointed out by Dzlife and expanded on later; "A perfect implementation of a WP:POV fork as defined under our neutrality policy: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". This is clearly what is happening here, and the argument was not refuted by any Keep voters. Whilst NPOV is not a reason to delete, content forking certainly is. Given both that this was the strongest argument, along with the general consensus to delete, the outcome is clear. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 20. If you have time, please read my closing comments as well as the previous AfD and DRV discussions to get an idea of the issues involved. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
(this belongs above temperamental1 above)The year 722 was written inside the oldest Hadith found which contained the caligrophy of the year. Not ever Hadith had this feature, so until the next Hadith is found with a lower year, 722 is the guess of the revisionist movement. The vast majority of historians and scholars reject this number. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 12:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Not a notable person. The page doesn't contain anything about her life. Mike 2 8 9(click on 9)! 20:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
No evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE, can't find any notable college accoplishments neither other than trivial passing game mentions Delete Secret account 04:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per criterion G7. Already deleted, housekeeping closure. VQuakr ( talk) 05:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Conflict of interest, lack of notability, poor references, poor tone. Contested PROD and G7. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination for User:Sin_dash_x - see Talk:Studio Ghibli short films. "This is a pointless article, information is already available on other pages notable the main Studio Ghibli page - which clearly lists in chronological and categorical order the short films that the studio has produced. The list on the main Studio Ghibli page links directly to pages for specific films. This page however is poorly written, incomplete and completely disorganised (why info boxes? why "see also") - its is missing many films listed on main Studio Ghibli page, those that are listed are summarised and then linked to their own more detailed existing pages. Studio Ghibli's advertising and commercial work is mixed in with short films on this page. Image on page is of a compilation dvd entitled "Ghibli Ga Ippai", yet page does not cover films that appear on that release. Page has been left without any update since 2010. Sin dash x ( talk) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)" — Sin dash x ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Malkinann ( talk) 03:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
No independent third party sources provided to verify that the organization is notable. Only third party source is just directory information. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Clearly this page violates several rules and has misused purpose. The content for biography of living person is poorly sourced, where this single source points to single event. Data cannot be verify due to the lack of information about different point of view and the only single source does not conclude anything regarding this person, simply stating his name. So widespread definition simply forms a gossip
WP:BLPGOSSIP.
On the other hand, the presence of repeated vandalism of the page shows that it's used primary for personal battlefield. The presence of personal conflict also violates the rules
WP:BATTLEGROUND and creates event which later others can quote Wikipedia. To hold somebody a grudges is not a reason for creating biography page in Wikipedia and use it's influence as encyclopedical content back against the person.
Person is relatively unknown and the one single source, which can be misread, can affect a person's reputation, future personal and business life WP:NPF. Page is also to be considered as long-term abuse and attack to individual based on personal grudges. Perfectford ( talk) 19:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even the disambiguation page poke recognizes that this is a subject best suited for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia (note that the first link on that page is to Wiktionary). There's no evidence that there is anything encyclopedic to say about the act of poking. Powers T 22:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I've had a request from the subject of the article and am nominating on his behalf. I've not done much research (yet), but from a quick Google it's barely notable. It has been PROD'd once before and the tag was removed after 6.5 days, and one measly reference added. At the moment it's a long list of unreferenced performances. Alex Muller 10:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy deletion, not mine. Article is about a back office software business apparently selling backup systems for online businesses. Unreferenced advertisement and solution-speak:
No independent references; list of external links are about the concept of " continuous availability" generally rather than this business specifically. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if they pass the notability threshold at a future date. The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't find any significant coverage for this band. The band was formed when they were in middle school and they have no albums released on a label. SL93 ( talk) 21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO. created by a single purpose editor for obvious promotion. gets some very limited coverage for modelling. note i don't see her competition wins as major. [68]. as for acting career, imdb has no entry for her. nor can i even verify she acted in the TV series mentioned [69]. LibStar ( talk) 03:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Claims of millions of YouTube hits are made, of catapulting into heights, of all kinds of awards, but I don't see it. Delete. Drmies ( talk) 02:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as a copyvio. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The notability of the subject is asserted and is probably not problematic. However, the tone of the article, including its title, is so utterly unencyclopedic that the article will need a rewrite from scratch. Much of the article is blatanly off-topic, and the article has also been tagged as a possible copyvio of printed material. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 00:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Wrong venue. This is a 5-year-old redirect, and as such it will be listed at WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 22:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
It serves no purpose. It was only linked by two articles. I changed one to a pipe and the other will be piped or changed pending a discussion. Metallurgist ( talk) 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. For all the words in this debate, the consensus is quite clear that the article is to be kept. Mkativerata ( talk) 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Polish dictionary word, non-encyclopedic, not notable, not suitable for English wikipedia. Relevant policies:
WP:ENGLISH
WP:DICTIONARY (see my comment at my vote below) --
Lysy
talk 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
reply
<- Ok, I don't know why this has to be repeated, but it's obvious that Polish linguists will study the etymology of Polish words - and you can find sources (in Polish) to that effect. That is NOT enough to show notability for the purposes of English Wikipedia, IMO.
But let's come back to this " coverage in numerous, reliable sources" - IT'S NOT THERE. Malick78 filled up the article with a bunch of junk he found on the internet consisting of things like:
The last two, or even four, are just random usages of the word out there in the internets. They are not reliable and they most certainly do not show notability - just the fact that people actually use this word sometimes (crazy!)
What's left after you remove this junk? What are these supposed "dozens" or "numerous" reliable sources?
That's it. Of these only one can be considered both relevant and reliable, the Pirog article, though certainly not "high quality reliable source". And even that article is mostly about racism in Poland and only deals with the word in a minor manner. It's sort of as if you found an article on Racism in US, which discusses the word "black" and used that as a basis for creating an article on Black (word for black people) or something, rather than the appropriate article on Racism in US or Black people.
The tv interview is borderline - if this was really a notable article topic and there really were "numerous" or "dozens" (as people here keep erroneously asserting) of other sources on it, then I'd probably support it's inclusion. But there are no "numerous" or "dozens" of other sources - at best you got 1 - so by itself this doesn't cut it. Volunteer Marek 17:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, with salt. The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I could not find a single reliable source covering the game. Delete per WP:GNG. Author contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 ( talk) 22:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
note—check article history if things look weird, article creator just removed afd template, although i restored it. (and warned) — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 23:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 21. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I've been following this new article for several days, but the editors keep adding things which do not address the tags. To me, this article reads like in-universe propaganda for the UFO religion Urantia, and does not make any claim why this particular section is significant or notable using reliable 3rd party sources. Therefore, I'm nominating it for deletion. AstroCog ( talk) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD on the grounds of notability. I proposed deletion six days ago NOT because of notability, but because the article is a content fork of San Antonio Talons, as most of the text is copied from San Antonio Talons. The team was formerly known as the Tulsa Talons. Tampabay721 ( talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Completely different from, and slightly better than the article on this title deleted by the previous AfD discussion. But it still seems too much like a student essay. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Author's Comments Keep
EmpowerTMs, it might be a great new idea that shouldn't be in WIkipedia. The relevant standard is wp:notability. If you think there is coverage of the type required by the policy, you should put that in or un-obscure it quickly. Unless/until then I think this should be deleted. If something changes, please feel free to ping me on my talk page. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 00:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Full disclosure: I did !vote in this AfD, however the snow has fallen, so, closing. The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
After Geo Swan contested the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 28#Jeffrey H. Norwitz, Zscout370 restored the article, writing:The administrator who deleted it did so after processing OTRS ticket 2009011410017732. The deleting administrator and I corresponded. They acknowledged that the article had been neutrally written, otherwise complied with all our policies, that Norwitz had no actual complaints about the article. The deleting administrator told me Norwitz simply didn't want a wikipedia article. The deleting administrator told me that their interpretation of the role of an OTRS team member that they felt they were authorized to delete articles to comply with an outside individual's request, when, in their sole judgment, the individual was of marginal notability. I don't agree that Norwitz was of marginal notability in January 2009. Since the deletion Norwitz has published another book. He has broadcast youtube videos. He has made more public appearances. So I think his notability is even more clear cut now.
... For what it is worth there are lots of biographies of Norwitz scattered around the web. So it is not as if Norwitz was trying to reduce his online footprint in order to protect his privacy because he was an interrogator at Guantanamo. Rather Norwitz just doesn't want a biography on wikipedia.
— User:Geo Swan 08:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Restored at the time I did the deletion in 2009, I was the one that handled the OTRS ticket. My mindset at the time was to err on the side of caution and have short articles like this removed. Geo has been speaking to me off and on since the deletion and I agree that the content itself is neutral, but still at the time of deletion I was in that mindset. Now close to being the end of 2011, I was a n00b and realized it was not the best course of action now. After speaking to more OTRS staff since the DR was brought up, they felt that it would be wise to restore the material and let a regular AFD deal with the subject.
— User:Zscout370 17:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for deletion to allow discussion about whether the page should be deleted per the subject's request. This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Cunard ( talk) 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. AfD'd within the hour of creation...tsk. WP:DANNO The Bushranger One ping only 00:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:1EVENT. Avenue X at Cicero ( talk) 17:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 23:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is original research, predicated on Wikipedia editor's research indicating that these four players have "made the cut to foreign club." ScottyBerg ( talk) 16:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Based on the citation that was just added to the article, [25], I'm convinced now that the article is not based on original research. However, I have strong doubts that the article in its present form is the correct way to go. I agree that a list might be better. ScottyBerg ( talk) 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Overcategorization. I can't see that language is an appropriate defining characteristic for a list of singers. The fact that they're male? Definitely not. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 16:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NEOLOGISM -- a term that gets zero relevant gnews hits (the uses of "Yollies" which appear in archives are not for this usage). All sources cited in article written by same pair of collaborators. Article writer appears to be a promo account for the think tank publishing these writers. Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
This is an essay with highly dubious sourcing. None of the independent reliable sources used mention Brigham Young University in any way. Sources that do mention Brigham are either not independent or not reliable by any standard (for example, the title of a facebook group). I do not believe dating and marriage at this university is a notable article subject and most of the material seems to be wp:synthesis based on statistical data Yoenit ( talk) 15:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I placed a prod template on this for lack of independent sourcing - the article author has removed that template and not added any sources, so here we are at AFD. The only sources in the article are to the company's own site, to a press release about a sports team they are sponsoring, or don't actually pention Xendpay. I've searched and I cannot find additional sourcing. MrOllie ( talk) 15:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was consensus chose the freedom to delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
A strange article – bits of it are referenced to reliable sources, but it is basically just an opinion piece/personal essay. This is a violation of policy: WP:NOTESSAY. The interesting thing is that the term is used in scholarly sources, but I can find no actual significant coverage of the term, which is what's required by the general notability guideline. Happy to be proven wrong, but at the moment it is a violation of policy and shows no evidence of being notable. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus - normally WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL would apply, but it appears the game is beyond the design stage. The article is still under construction, so userfication is also appropriate and does not required AfD. Bearian ( talk) 16:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Game that has only been announced (since 2009, release predicted for Q2 2012 at the moment), but hasn't been released and hasn't received significant attention in reliable, independent sources, so fails our notability guideline. Searching for the game, but excluding their own site, only returns 85 distinct Google hits [28], many of those from Wikipedia, flickr, alexa, or the game studio itself. No Google News (archive) hits. Fram ( talk) 14:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Disputed speedy CSD:A7, disputed prod. This article makes no assertion of the notability of the organization, and it does not meet the guidelines of WP:CORP. As a sniff test, it gets exactly zero hits on Google Books, for example. Wtshymanski ( talk) 13:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
PROD declined procedurally due to previous AfD. The article is almost identical to the last revision before the previous AfD and thus this could really have G4. Zero reliable sources with which to establish notability, particularly any evidence that the band or works pass WP:MUSIC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8)#Sophie Habibis. Exercising a bit of discretion here, seems like what I have put down is a more specific target. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Contestant from The X Factor (UK series 8) who is not notable at the present time, having not even qualified for the live finals yet. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Regarding your above comment, I beleive she has met section 9 of WP:MUSICBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.160.171 ( talk) 10:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I could not find any reliable source covering this event. It is promotion of a brand new event. Delete per WP:GNG. Contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 ( talk) 12:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Meets CSD criterion A7 for organizations. causa sui ( talk) 21:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
no indication of notability - speedy deleted several times already as purely promotional. Google searches produce no significant secondary sources. noq ( talk) 12:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Move to History of horse domestication theories and expand. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The theory appears to be non-notable, if not entirely non-existent. A google books search for "four foundations theory" gets exactly one hit, to a "book" which is actually a compilation of articles from ... Wikipedia. "four+foundations+theory" Worldcat, 0 hits; JSTOR, 0 results; Google scholar, 0 results. Searching the principal source cited in the article, Bennett's Conquerors, for the string "four foundations" in Google books gives no result (which may of course be due to shortcomings in Google). Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
After thinking a bit more about this, I think we maybe can find a more constructive solution here. What we know is that the single origin/multiple origin has been a debate for many many years, and the end conclusion was that both ideas were true (stallions single origin, mares multiple origins), albeit without the explicit link between appearance and breed types. This debate has been discussed in length in many many papers, and it was only solved in this century after DNA sequencing became very wide spread. It has been named many things, one alternative example is monophyly versus polyphyly. I think the best solution would be have an article detailing this debate, and have summary statements in the relevant articles. As a name, we can think of something like "Single versus multiple origins debate in horse domestication". That would be a more inclusive article and provide much more information about the topic than the current rather narrow article. Any thoughts? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax, as IMDb link provided is a dead link and no Sean Treadaway exists on their site. Even if it isn't a hoax, no significant roles or coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope ( talk) 11:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BAND 1-6 and 8-12. No evidence provided that the band meets point 7 either. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 10:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:ORG. Submitted on behalf of User:Domenico.y per this. JFHJr ( ㊟) 06:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the existence, or lack of existence of this guitarist. Apparently there is a question on that point, e.g., [38], not that that's a particularly reliable set of data either. No evidence of notability under GNG nor MUSICBIO. Additiona sources welcome, as always. joe decker talk to me 06:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
also nominating:
all fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. routine non notable sporting results. LibStar ( talk) 05:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. This is a case where we have a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources, but whether it is significant is open to debate. Many of them deal with iClothing as their primary subject, and when dealing with companies and their founders WP:INHERITED is always case-by-case. In this discussion, I did not find a consensus over this matter. Meanwhile, WP:COI and WP:BLP are non-issues with regards to deletion. First of all the COI allegations are speculation, and even if they were true, the article should stay if the subject is notable. BLP violations, if any, can be addressed by removing unsourced content from the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Fashionista subject is not notable per the following: guidelines:
After significant cleanup per WP:BIO, WP:SOURCES, and WP:BLP the article content indicates its subject is not notable in an encyclopedic way. Some media coverage has been given to the subject's clothing line as a concept, but a stand-alone article for this individual as a subject is not supported by that scant coverage. Having removed interested parties from references, the facts they asserted, and assertions unsupported by any citations, the article reads like a brief social media profile. JFHJr ( ㊟) 05:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Hi JFHJr,
Reichman is not a Fashionista, she is a fashion entrepreneur [1]. Her iClothing brand and her Being Born Again Couture mark that.
You have "cleaned up the article" in such a way that it is very obscure and there is nothing left of Reichman except a few lines which by itself aren't notable.
I don't know if I could do this, because I am new, but could I roll back your "cleanup" to the one before you "edited", therefore Reichman is notable once again?
Thank you. Domenico.y ( talk) 06:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y — Domenico.y ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
"verifiable through reliable third-party sources" - interviewers and magazines interviewed Reichman for her notability and her fashion entrepreneurship for her founding of iClothing and she changed the course of history for 2 Australian fashion designers with Being Born Again Couture (which you took out).
Where are those cites of ABC News (America), CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), Gizmodo, www.news.com.au (Australia), 360Fashion, Fashion ONE TV, Channel 7 & Channel 9 (Australia), ChanceTV (NYC), Veja TV (Latino) and NDTV (China)?
She is Australian but she moved to New York City to make a name in the fashion industry which is mighty hard and she has. Please roll back the changes that you have made so others can comment on her notability. Domenico.y ( talk) Domenico.y —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC). reply
Ok, thanks - the references have been removed by a little pixie I think! I will edit the references back in but tomorrow evening. Thank you for your time. Domenico.y ( talk) 07:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
Wall Street Journal or News.com.au, a subsidiary of News Limited or Womens Mafia or Artmonthsydney not reliable? You have got to be kidding, JFHJr. Since when can that be faked or not reliable? I will edit the article again to ensure the references by NOTABLE publications are available for everyone to see. Domenico.y ( talk) 20:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
I disagree - Reichman created and founded iClothing, facilitating them. She created a new technology-fashion instrument. How many of you out there have done that please? Please see the video on news.com.au and read the article on The Wall Street Journal, if you haven 't already. Who's to say what is well known? Are you Australian? Do you consider the Mornings with Kerri-Anne "notable"? The population of Australia tunes in every morning to watch that show and it is on every workstation TV in consultancy's around Australia. As for ABC TV, that is notable because they are in every country. They take off old links from the past 6 months every year to make room for more content. There was a link on ABC TV's Art Nation but now it appears to be gone. Shall I cite dead link but somehow get the archived old copy? Please look at the images from the Being Born Again Show and compare them to the images on the different sites - they are exactly the same, Lo Sordo and Fenitti created garments with Reichman's assistance and influence. Thanks Domenico.y ( talk) 20:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
Ok, hold on please {{hold}}
Domenico.y (
talk) 21:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
reply
P.S. I take it you don't know about fashion, but when people influence 2 major fashion designers, it's notable, no matter what country they are from. The designers may not have mentioned this, but through photos and references, we can see that. That is the sole reason I kept in those references. Now I have to really go catch the train for work. I will be back online in 13 hours' time.
Thank you for respecting that {{hold}}
tag.
Domenico.y (
talk) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
reply
Dear JFHJr,
If you please look at the photographic evidence, you will see. "influenced" - it does not need to say that when looking at those images. Please look and see and then you will note that it is correct in saying that Reichman influenced. I am busy finding articles after work - please let me finish work. And hold off editing till I get off work because it is unfair. Admin - can you do something here please to put a hold on the article? Domenico.y ( talk) 22:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
— 68.175.22.238 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi,
I was researching last night and came across this article: http://www.textileglobal.com/2010/05/the-fashion-group-international-of-sydney-presentation-interpreting-trends-aw-2010.html and in here is the I think proof I am searching for: "Davina created & facilitated the Michael Lo Sordo & Chris Horder collaboration for Rosemount Australian Fashion Week. Michael is using Chris’ prints for his fashion collection this season." - it is not a blog, it is textileglobal.com.
I could have sworn I put this in the first place, but I can't find it. Is this necessary proof? What JFHJr is concerned about I have speculation, not proof and he is right because I failed to put in that article it seems, but I think this is proof? Then I can put in the references of the photo of Imbruglia wearing Lo Sordo print, that runway.comms article and the ArtMonth article referenced? I don't know if I am allowed to do this though because there is too many 'deletes' already? Thank you. Domenico.y ( talk) 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Domenico.y reply
Both editors seem to have differing points of view in Talk:Davina_Reichman#Comment_and_action.3F.
Conclusion: In any case: Christopher Horder [48] is famous Australian artist which exhibits in Liverpool Street Gallery, Sydney, Australia. [49] Michael Lo Sordo is a famous Australian fashion designer. After the Being Born Again Couture in April, Lo Sordo received heaps of press in regards to the prints (which were collaborated by Christopher Horder) which Reichman 'created and facilitated'. Lo Sordo was showing in Australian Fashion Week using those very prints in May.
Now even for ArtMonth, Sydney Australia says "Gallery Talk: Christopher Horder and fashion designer Michael Lo Sordo discuss their collaboration for Rosemount Australian Fashion Week 2010." [50] They collaborated for Australian Fashion Week [51] " Christoper Horder's CV reads"...Being Born Again Couture, collaboration with fashion designer Michael Lo Sordo" [52] and there is of course facebook [53]
"Reichman created and facilitated a Michael Lo Sordo and Chris Horder collaboration project for Australian Fashion Week" (according to JFHJr is the correct citing of the text) Textile Global, The Fashion Group International of Sydney Presentation Interpreting Trends Autumn Winter 2010, [54], May 27 2010
(It is much easier to put the text on the AfD for Reichman, because only 2 editors commented and 2 out of possibly 100 editors is not the majority.)
Domenico.y ( talk) 17:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
Hi JFHJr,
Why did you remove my text when you said to do "Reichman created and facilitated a Michael Lo Sordo and Chris Horder collaboration project for Australian Fashion Week"? with that reference? I do not understand. On wikipedia, it says that you should not remove anything without explaining it fully. I have let that slide as I am sure you have a good reason for it, but this isn't offering me help to improve the article and what I had asked for initially is assistance and help and only a few you of editors have provided that. Thank you. Domenico.y ( talk) 18:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
Regarding notability JFHJr What makes a fashion designer "notable"? It is because you say so in many posts that Lo Sordo and Finetti are not notable? In Australia, they are notable, they just don't have wikipedia pages. The fact that someone isn't "noteable" in other countries besides Australia does not mean they are not notable in that country.
For example, why did ConcernedConcernedVancouverite, another editor with the same privileges as you all, remove "COI" in the Being Born Again Couture Fashion show article but they did not remove that in any other place like for example in the Hugh Evans (humanitarian), Davina Reichmann or Anina (model), after I said that I have no relation or do not promote any articles I am editing? Confused.
I meant to say in the post while 2 editors agree on this point, can we see what the 98 or other editors say *before* you delete my edits please.
Reasons being: I can see from comparing the images that Lo Sordo and Fenitti's designs that they are the same or similar etc, but JFHJr would not have that as "proof" because it did not say "influenced", even though I cited a bunch of articles which intimated(?) that Reichmann may have "something to do with" Lo Sordo and Finetti choosing those particular artists to "copy" and make their Australian Fashion Week range out of (and yes, fb is not a source).
Fashion is subjective in some parts, not objective, take the designer houses "Louboutin vs YSL" case which was fought in court, so that is why I asked initially that could anyone please find someone that knows fashion and that can comment on fashion to assist.
Domenico.y ( talk) 20:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y reply
The result was delete. Whilst there is a general consensus to delete, with around 2/3 of the votes going that way, there are further factors in play. First of all, a number of votes are weak. Merely pointing out that "the article has lots of sources" isn't a good argument in this particular discussion, and of the course votes along the lines of "it's notable" , or "deleting would be censorship" are of course given less weight. That's not to say there are not weak Delete votes as well - there are; there appears to be little evidence that this article is synthesis or original research, and NPOV is usually grounds for fixing, not deleting. However, the argument that was pivotal here was the one first pointed out by Dzlife and expanded on later; "A perfect implementation of a WP:POV fork as defined under our neutrality policy: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". This is clearly what is happening here, and the argument was not refuted by any Keep voters. Whilst NPOV is not a reason to delete, content forking certainly is. Given both that this was the strongest argument, along with the general consensus to delete, the outcome is clear. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 20. If you have time, please read my closing comments as well as the previous AfD and DRV discussions to get an idea of the issues involved. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
(this belongs above temperamental1 above)The year 722 was written inside the oldest Hadith found which contained the caligrophy of the year. Not ever Hadith had this feature, so until the next Hadith is found with a lower year, 722 is the guess of the revisionist movement. The vast majority of historians and scholars reject this number. Cheers! Meishern ( talk) 12:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Not a notable person. The page doesn't contain anything about her life. Mike 2 8 9(click on 9)! 20:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
No evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE, can't find any notable college accoplishments neither other than trivial passing game mentions Delete Secret account 04:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per criterion G7. Already deleted, housekeeping closure. VQuakr ( talk) 05:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Conflict of interest, lack of notability, poor references, poor tone. Contested PROD and G7. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination for User:Sin_dash_x - see Talk:Studio Ghibli short films. "This is a pointless article, information is already available on other pages notable the main Studio Ghibli page - which clearly lists in chronological and categorical order the short films that the studio has produced. The list on the main Studio Ghibli page links directly to pages for specific films. This page however is poorly written, incomplete and completely disorganised (why info boxes? why "see also") - its is missing many films listed on main Studio Ghibli page, those that are listed are summarised and then linked to their own more detailed existing pages. Studio Ghibli's advertising and commercial work is mixed in with short films on this page. Image on page is of a compilation dvd entitled "Ghibli Ga Ippai", yet page does not cover films that appear on that release. Page has been left without any update since 2010. Sin dash x ( talk) 14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)" — Sin dash x ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Malkinann ( talk) 03:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
No independent third party sources provided to verify that the organization is notable. Only third party source is just directory information. Qwyrxian ( talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Clearly this page violates several rules and has misused purpose. The content for biography of living person is poorly sourced, where this single source points to single event. Data cannot be verify due to the lack of information about different point of view and the only single source does not conclude anything regarding this person, simply stating his name. So widespread definition simply forms a gossip
WP:BLPGOSSIP.
On the other hand, the presence of repeated vandalism of the page shows that it's used primary for personal battlefield. The presence of personal conflict also violates the rules
WP:BATTLEGROUND and creates event which later others can quote Wikipedia. To hold somebody a grudges is not a reason for creating biography page in Wikipedia and use it's influence as encyclopedical content back against the person.
Person is relatively unknown and the one single source, which can be misread, can affect a person's reputation, future personal and business life WP:NPF. Page is also to be considered as long-term abuse and attack to individual based on personal grudges. Perfectford ( talk) 19:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even the disambiguation page poke recognizes that this is a subject best suited for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia (note that the first link on that page is to Wiktionary). There's no evidence that there is anything encyclopedic to say about the act of poking. Powers T 22:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I've had a request from the subject of the article and am nominating on his behalf. I've not done much research (yet), but from a quick Google it's barely notable. It has been PROD'd once before and the tag was removed after 6.5 days, and one measly reference added. At the moment it's a long list of unreferenced performances. Alex Muller 10:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy deletion, not mine. Article is about a back office software business apparently selling backup systems for online businesses. Unreferenced advertisement and solution-speak:
No independent references; list of external links are about the concept of " continuous availability" generally rather than this business specifically. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if they pass the notability threshold at a future date. The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't find any significant coverage for this band. The band was formed when they were in middle school and they have no albums released on a label. SL93 ( talk) 21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO. created by a single purpose editor for obvious promotion. gets some very limited coverage for modelling. note i don't see her competition wins as major. [68]. as for acting career, imdb has no entry for her. nor can i even verify she acted in the TV series mentioned [69]. LibStar ( talk) 03:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Claims of millions of YouTube hits are made, of catapulting into heights, of all kinds of awards, but I don't see it. Delete. Drmies ( talk) 02:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as a copyvio. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The notability of the subject is asserted and is probably not problematic. However, the tone of the article, including its title, is so utterly unencyclopedic that the article will need a rewrite from scratch. Much of the article is blatanly off-topic, and the article has also been tagged as a possible copyvio of printed material. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 00:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Wrong venue. This is a 5-year-old redirect, and as such it will be listed at WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 22:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
It serves no purpose. It was only linked by two articles. I changed one to a pipe and the other will be piped or changed pending a discussion. Metallurgist ( talk) 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply