![]() |
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapmin ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. However, DoctorKubla does have a point, maybe this article was created too early. Once this event happens then perhaps this issue can be re-evaluated but at the moment there's no consensus to delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
While I personally like the idea behind this upcoming event, and it is certainly for a good cause, I don't really think it meets the notability requirements to be included as its own article. As it stands, the only places that make any mention of it are the websites that are directly connected to the event, thus it fails having reliable third party sources. In addition, as the event itself isn't scheduled to occur for nearly half a year from now, it is too early to even say how notable it will wind up being, per WP:Crystal. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Hi Rorshacma, I really appreciate the concern. Third party references have been added, so I hope this helps. I think an event that hasn't occurred still warrants a page. This is my first time creating a page, and I do appreciate all feedback.
Ehenneberger (
talk)
20:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Delete - Third party sources seem alright, and I'm sure it'll get more coverage as it happens, but I still don't think it meets the notability guidelines in WP:EVENT, as I doubt it has enduring historical significance. I'd suggest, Ehenneberger, that you wait until after the event and then add it to the Nerdist page, since they seem to have organised the whole thing. DoctorKubla ( talk) 21:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
KEEP - As a first of its kind event, the Course of the Force has already generated substantial pre-event publicity and news coverage. It is a standalone event that is significant in the Star Wars, science fiction, and charitable worlds. It is economically significant for the cities from Santa Monica to San Diego that it will go through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.221.40 ( talk) 20:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep - The article seemed to be marketing copy, but I've been following the progress of the event and think it warrants inclusion. I made the article neutral and removed alot of the marketing wording. The Nerdist partners founded the event, but it looks to be it's own thing. I removed some of the stuff that looks unfounded or unplanned at this point, like the scheduling section. I also combined several unnecessary subcategories into one. Fluxfire01 ( talk) 02:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 17:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
A complete mess of an article about a young man who set up an events/animation company. It falls halfway between being a resume for Hatchard and a long list of activities and associations of Hotbox, his company. Most if not all the sources verify something trivial about Hotbox. There is barely anything in the references of note, certainly no in-depth, independent, reliable coverage about Hatchard. With his uncommon name you would expect to find anything that exists online, unfortunately I can't find anything to support this article. The 'notability' tag has been on the article for many months. Sionk ( talk) 22:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I wrote this article as Hatchard's company, Hotbox Studios, is very successful and has been covered by a number of reliable and independent sources. As it's founder, Hatchard is also mentioned in this articles, so I considered an article about him would meet the general notability requirement. Perhaps there is too much focus on him and not enough on the company however. Maybe the article should be titled 'Hotbox Studios' instead and give more prominence to the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystal Wilde ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 09:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not meet general notability guidelines; strictly of local interest. Miniapolis ( talk) 22:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Cloudz 679 20:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Amateur league. Fails WP:FOOTYN. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kubigula ( talk) 04:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non- notable website. Despite the original author's attempt to make this article look really impressive with lots of references, five separate references were found to be citations to the same press release published in five different magazines. Other references are to generic articles about privacy in social networks, but there is no evidence of anything on the web about this website but self-promotion by its founder. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Kilvey Hill. Sandstein 19:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Fund-raising sport event. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Spam / nn-website. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be a notable company. Article creator declined prod with explanation that it is mentioned in the national (I assume British) press. However, my own search turns up little on this company and website. The sources given in the article appear to talk about coupon sites in general, not this particular company. Safiel ( talk) 20:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Repeatedly proposed for speedy deletion but tag removed with no explanation. Questionable notability and seems to have been written by either the subject or a close representative. Admin response reqd. Steelwool ( talk) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Consensus favors the notion that this topic is not sufficiently notable for its own article, but apparently we do have an article on a related subject. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Not an encyclopedia article. Hard to tell what it's about, but it seems to be about the development of a product, with a distinctly spammy feel. No independent references. AndrewWTaylor ( talk) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I'm sorry Yaloe and frankie but I disregarded your !votes because they didn't add anything to the discussion. Another "keep" !voter admitted that his !vote wasn't very strong. Add to that the nominator's admission that he was unable to evaluate non-english sources. This one's a draw. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This group seems to (at least as near as I can tell) have come and gone without much impact. It generates three mentions at Google Books, zero in Google News, and most of the hits on Google in general are either Wiki mirrors or are sites that basically cue to a set of words. My best guess is that the group was a "flash in the pan" prior to the first round of elections in Afghanistan and that it never managed to do anything of note (there were a number of organziations like this in the mid-2000s in Afghanistan as near as I can tell). Even the sole source cited seems to back this up...it seems to imply that this was nothing more than a temporary working group among a group of minor parties. Tyrenon ( talk) 22:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Website of questionable notability. Google news search shows zero results. Standard search shows primary and unreliable sources, directory links, and social media mentions, but no significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski ( talk) 19:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
There is nothing wrong with my article. FICGS does get google search results. I also updated my sources with independent pages. Such article does exist in the Italian wikipedia and there is no complaint there.
This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because the article is about new correspondence chess organization. FICGS is responsible for organizing correspondence chess championship similar to the ICCF World Correspondence Chess Championship. I am not affiliate with FICGS by any means.
I want to mention that similar article is written in Italian and my article is the English version. The Italian article is accepted, the English version should be accepted too. FICGS is hosting World Championship tournament which is the second most important event in the world of correspondence chess after the ICCF World Correspondence Chess Championship. The last 3 FICGS events were won by ICCF and FIDE recognized chess grandmasters - Edward Kotlyanskiy and Eros Riccio. This article gives information about correspondence chess. FICGS is mentioned in the main article Correspondence chess and I think it deserves place in wikipedia.
There are several other articles mentioning FICGS like Eros Riccio and Edward Kotlyanskiy. Both players are recognized as FICGS champions by Chessbase. Chessbase Correspondence Chess Database 2010 and 2011 includes correspondence chess games, played in FICGS by international masters and grandmasters, recognized by ICCF and FIDE.
I think the articles serves a purpose to inform about new possibilities like playing advanced chess, invented by Garry Kasparov and also giving information about international correspondence chess event, recognized by Chessbase and other Correspondence database creators. Without this article the information in the main article Correspondence chess and the articles Eros Riccio and Edward Kotlyanskiy is incomplete.
Therefore I think the article shouldn't be deleted. I as the author of the article am open to suggestions about improving the quality of my article. Dimvass ( talk) 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to HP Pavilion (computer). — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Variant of HP Pavilion (computer), no independent notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTABILITY - Five references provided; several are event listings, one is a cast list where he played a minor role, one is a page of a database (one that doesn't even mention him, due presumably to linking to a non-stable search result, but which would not confer notability even if he did.) Subject gets zero hits on Google News, google hits are his social media and his own promotion. Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 23:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I consider the initial rationale for deletion to have been fully rebutted; however, the later delete !votes focused on the series' (as a group) failure to pass WP:LISTN and WP:N. I think that consensus was reached that it did not. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is not written like an advertisement; it is advertisements that are usually written like this stub! The whole foundation of this stub is based on weasel words and peacock terms that merely boast this series of video games while neither this article nor any other of the three Ground Control articles have supplied a shred of evidence that this game is ever well-received. In fact my Bing searches suggest otherwise. Fleet Command ( talk) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Note that the number of views or the number of google hits are not considered valid arguments for keeping. henrik• talk 10:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails wp:NMUSIC. I can't find any mentions on a Google search, or a Google news search. Looking at the article's references:
Now let's look at the Earshot chart references (8 and 9)...
I have corrected the source 4. It's now working and it's a reliable source according to WP:V. Source 1 even if it is self-published can be considered as reliable and used as a reference in similar cases because it cites raw-data such as place of stay and job type. Source 2 you are right is a primary source. Alone it cannot stay. In this case it is supported by reliable 3rd party references. In my opinion it can stay. -- ★ Pikks ★ MsG 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. henrik• talk 10:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable producer JayJay Talk to me 03:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notalbe building, can't seem to find references to suggest notability JayJay Talk to me 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, also fails WP:NBAND JayJay Talk to me 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Footballer who hasn't played at senior level for a professional team, also fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds he has played in the Norwegian Cup. However, his single appearance to date was in the early stages of the competition against lower division club. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. B music ian 06:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Strange article that seems to be a recreation of an earlier removed page (tagged in september 2011), and copyvio from a Facebookpage (dubbed the official website). And apprearing here just before the official launch on 28 March 2012. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The argument that there is not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to give an accurate portrayal as required by WP:BLP is perhaps not the most common, but I find it persuasive. The arguments by Gatoclass et. al, has shown coverage weakly sufficient to establish notability. However, I am persuaded by the argumentation that the sourcing falls short of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV requirements for an accurate portrayal to such a degree that it's not possible to write a policy conforming article. henrik• talk 11:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of any substantial notability; article uses dubious and self-published sources for all information about her (the NCCAM source is just used for a definition, and is arguably WP:SYNTH, since it doesn't actually discuss Eden's ideas). Seems like a marginal article at best, and lack of good sources is likely an insurmountable problem, which a look at Google Scholar and Books only confirms.
It's probably also worth noting that the lack of any reliable sources gives this article major WP:BLP issues. 86.** IP ( talk) 17:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Apology and comment Gatoclass, sorry I didn't mean to personalise this disagreement by saying "you (specifically) 've had quite long enough..." That was a poor choice of words and i meant to say that the authors/defenders generally of this article have had sufficient time to establish notability. However, I agree with Agricola that you are confusing the notability of an author with the (alleged) notability of (some, or one of) her books. Earlier in this discussion you also (seem to) have argued that because the field of energy medicine is notable, Eden is. What this all adds up to for me, is that Eden's book itself might deserve an article, or deserves to be used as a source in the energy medicine article as one of the "seminal" works on the topic, but none of it necessitates an article on her. If it does, wouldn't WP rapidly fill up with stub articles saying: "Person X is an author. S/he wrote insert name of book here" which would be no more helpful than a simple redirect. Famousdog ( talk) 09:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
More comments (sorry this is probably getting tedious now) DGG, while I agree with your opinion that this article should be deleted [duplicate !vote] your argument that Publishers Weekly is "selective" doesn't work. PW is a US-based trade magazine for the publishing industry and therefore probably "selective" for US publications (like Eden's, which as I've argued previously, don't have much of a presence outside the US). If you factor in that every country on earth probably has a trade magazine for the local book trade (e.g. The Bookseller in the UK), I bet you can find a review of pretty much any "of the English language books published" in the trade mag for its local market. That's why trade journals are not RS. They are promoting sh*t. Non-RS links cannot and should not be used to establish notability.
Gatoclass, at the risk of incurring your ire, you still seem to be using the argument "notable book = notable author". But your arguments regarding the notability of the book rest on numbers in libraries or rankings on Amazon. Amazon is in the business of books and how they rank them is mired in mystery, so that's not a good argument. Regarding numbers in libraries, there are lots of copies of the UK phone directory in libraries, but its not a notable work of literature. Numbers of copies doesn't = notability. Although the two factors are probably correlated, other factors such as price come into it. Also, politically-motivated organisations such as the Discovery Institute can flood libraries with propagandist crap like this further distorting that connection. I'm not suggesting that this is the case here, just trying to explain why this argument is problematic.
What I actually think is going on here is this: If some hack were to write a book about a quite obscure topic about which there were few books available, it would undoubtedly become "seminal" in that field by the simple fact of its availability in the absence of other books. Maybe Eden's book is incorrect, full of errors or misrepresents energy medicine completely? How would we know? The fact that it is widely available and aggressively promoted means little as to whether the book or the author is notable. Your argument is further watered down to: "widely available book (or only book in field) = notable book = notable author". This is not good enough.
How about this: Look at her co-authors. She has collaborated with David Feinstein on 3 of her 4 books. Yet he doesn't have an article. How do we know the ideas presented in these books are Eden's and not Feinstein's? Maybe Eden is a ghost-writer? Maybe Feinstein is? We don't know anything about this person because reliable references to her are so scant. What about her other co-author, Gary Craig? He doesn't have an article either and his name simply redirects to Emotional Freedom Techniques, the particular subject with which he is connected. Donna Eden should similarly redirect to Energy medicine because she is a proponent of that (possibly notable) idea, but not seemingly notable in her own right. Famousdog ( talk) 12:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment There are unsupported assertions here that give a false impression. For example, " ACEP Qualified psychologists? Don't make me laugh. " followed by a running down of ACEP by saying ACEP is really mentioned and then saying it is promotion of quackery. I looked at the actual people listed in the reference: There are people with PhDs from respected US universities. so, yes, the people listed are qualified psychologists. The rest veers off-topic as a means of supporting the assertion. A second example is the assertion that Eden is essentially only [if at all] of significance in America ["I searched WorldCat for copies of Energy Medicine in the UK, Germany, New Zealand and several other countries and found only a handful of copies. Literally countable on the fingers of one hand. This woman is only known in fringe circles, only cited by fringe authors, only written about in local (American) rags and only when she's promoting a book or a workshop. "]. I already gave a German book review above. In addition, using a German search engine [Allesklar], I found a Swiss psychologist and practitioner of alternative medicine commenting on Eden [58], including quoting a founder of the American Holistic Medical Association touting energy medicine. [59]; there are translations into German of two books by her listed at Amazon.de [and two Spanish translations at Amazon.es]; A quick search in KVK [a German tool rather than WorldCat, which is American] of European academic libraries came up with more than ten copies in just Germany, with more books in Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, Poland, and the Netherlands [including Dutch, Danish, and Polish translations]; there are also some "practitioners" who say they base their work on Eden, and a forum that discusses one of her books. Now, this is not massive and not the sort of sites we use for citations, but it does discredit the assertions I quoted. Kdammers ( talk) 06:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in light of new evidence--with thanks to Dirtlawyer Drmies ( talk) 01:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Puff piece for a non-notable mayoral candidate and real estate developer. His jobs and aspirations do not make him notable, and neither does the coverage he generated. Drmies ( talk) 17:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Lobster Johnson#Bibliography. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
several templates, but no significant content Night of the Big Wind talk 22:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non- notable company. Appears to be part of an overall promotion campaign related to all of founder Rami Ghandour's enterprises. The only glimmer of independent coverage for this company is a minor lawsuit that was eventually dropped prior to trial. All other citations are to company-released press releases or business directory listings. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played for Swedish youth national teams, which of course does not provide notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons:
The result was keep. B music ian 07:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article. No existence confirmed.
Willy Weazley 15:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Original research. Man in the street ( talk) 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP, created by editor with conflict of interest (website developer for Lam's dance school), non-notable dance instructor, functions primarily as advert for dance school. Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to François Sagat. A lengthy discussion that has led to fairly standard result. No one in the discussion challenged the director's notability, while there has been no convincing evidence that the sources prove notability of the film itself. While the discussion waxed and waned, I think that the ultimate consensus was the reliably sourced material be summarized at the director's article. Since that has occurred, I have simply closed this as redirect. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFILM, text borders on the promotional. Negligible GNews coverage, and what's there is mostly presskit rewrites. All sourcing, referencing, and external links are promotional. Porn puffery if not outright spam. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply
with the press release'sa 2-part gay pornographic film co-directed and produced by French iconic pornstar François Sagat, his first as a film director and producer. Incubus, conceived, written, costumed, creatively directed by Sagat and co-directed and mentored by Brian Mills was shot in San Francisco for release in two parts by TitanMen.
Not to mention that the article'sThe film is Sagat’s first foray behind the camera in the role of Creative Director. The first of the two part series of films will release mid-December as TitanMen’s holiday blockbuster film. Incubus was conceived, written, costumed, art directed and stars the world’s most iconic gay pornstar, Francois Sagat.
is virtually a verbatim copy of the same press release'sThe film is an artistic, hypnotic journey that follows François Sagat's journey into a macabre world, never knowing if it's real or just the result of tormented dreams he has. Half-man, half-satyr, the two realms of Sagat's psyche battle it out on the screen
Not quite bad enough to speedy as a copyvio, but more than enough to establish that this is just warmed-over hype for a commercial product with no significant, independent coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC) replyThe film follows his journey into a macabre world, never knowing if it’s real or just the tormented dreams within his head. Half- man, half-satyr the two realms of Francois Sagat psyche battle it out on the screen.
delete, its simply not noteworthy,no coverage in independant media 125.239.109.92 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC). — 125.239.109.92 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
attempt at counting consensus obviously not binding, and not an actual vote count, but the discussion above is somewhat convoluted, with people offering different opinions at different times. try to keep reasoning short here for readability, and post full discussion level stuff above?
Keep only werldwayd ( talk) 03:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC) reply
merge or delete notable only through relationship to director, marginal sources, and would not clutter artist's page Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Extremely little information available on this incident, if any at all. It is only mentioned in a couple of blogs that list hundreds of alleged UFO sightings without any details whatsoever, besides from the picture uploaded by the article's creator. Even conceding that the episode itself might have existed (which is impossible to corroborate as there are no reliable sources of it anywhere that I could find), it doesn't appear to have any degree of notability beyond the thousands of reported UFO sightings that take place every year, let alone enough significance to warrant inclusion at List of UFO sightings or its associatted UFO template, alongside highly notable events such as those detailed at the Mantell UFO incident or Roswell UFO incident articles. Athilea ( talk) 09:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus.
Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable MMA event, no lasting historical significance, fails WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:MMAEVENT, WP:ROUTINE Mt king (edits) 10:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
That being said, let's assume your charge is true, and MMA events aren't covered in Britain because the British government, media and public uniformly hate them. So stipulated, so what? The GNG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We don't get to say that the GNG doesn't count so long as a subject "deserves" an article. The answer to a lack of reliable, significant coverage isn't that we let a subject have an article anyway. The answer is that the subject doesn't qualify for an article. Ravenswing 05:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
No references of notability. Johnduhart ( talk) 23:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Possible BLP issues related to implying the husband killed her, relatively small news item as far as deaths go. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 SmartSE ( talk) 16:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
1. Notability not established 2. Advertising 3. Cannot verify claims Widefox ( talk) 09:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Very short film on YouTube by non-notable who appears to be the whole team in one person. Unreferenced. PROD removed by IP - presumed to be the author. Peridon ( talk) 08:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Vanispamcruftisement. This Autobiography is a puff piece advertising an actor who lacks significant roles in multiple notable productions. duffbeerforme ( talk) 08:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
non-notable musical, no reliable reviews, only claim to notability is inclusion in Edinburgh Fringe Festival (which has over 2500 shows). Google news search turns up nothing. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 22:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The description is in a rather unknown publication and there is no indication of a holotype being designated and no secondary taxonomic databases seem to have included it either as a taxon or as a name. Also see Petaurista mechukaensis. Shyamal ( talk) 05:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The species does not appear to have been formally described with a type designation or published in a peer-reviewed journal of standing. In the 5 years since this supposed description, there is no other major taxonomic database that includes the species. No hits on Google Scholar either. Also see Petaurista mishmiensis. Shyamal ( talk) 04:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete for WP:Notability Delete for WP:Notablity. Standard constuction of the day that had no influence on future designs. None of the vessels had a service career or incident that would rise to the level of a stand-alone article. Much of the inline citations refer to different vessel lists from the same web site. While the author has done considerable research in good faith other articles from this editor all lack the comprehensive criteria of B class. Mariepr ( talk) 03:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Page was previously speedy deleted as a promo under G11, and the author, User:ParanoiaMethod was given a block for repeatedly removing the speedy template. In good faith, the editor in question is a) new and b) seems to speak English as a second language, not fluently. When block expired, the author recreated this page. It was PRODed as an unsourced BLP. Author left PROD up for a time, and added sources. Author now claims that sources are sufficient and has removed the PROD tag. The sources fail WP:RS as nearly as I and a WP:BEFORE search can tell, so I'm nominating for deletion. The sources include such wonders as the subject's Myspace page and Deviantart page. - Jorgath ( talk) ( contribs) 03:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. I have redirected the article to the relevant section of the main iPad article where this topic is already covered. Any further content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I think anyone's initial reaction to this AfD is likely to be "Of course this article merits keeping! It's common sense!" Without reviewing the article and its history, I too would have agreed with this sentiment. But I now believe differently.
This article was created over a year ago, apparently in the belief that there would be such a crush of information regarding public reaction to the iPad, that an article separate from iPad would be necessary. Good reasoning, but the past 13 months have demonstrated otherwise. Here is the status right now:
Those are my reasons supporting deletion of this article, but two other editors have advanced two straw men that I wish to address.
However, as long as the topic (of being outdated) has been brought up by others, let me point out something about the article that is informative to its ostensible importance. Before I came along here, this article--an article on the reception to the most popular computer in history--had only been edited only 27 times in over a year. I think it's clear that this article is outdated because it is so inconsequential. If it served any purpose at all, editors would be updating it, but they are not.
Deleting this article will not result in the loss of content, it will simply mean reducing the orphan load by one. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 02:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Microsoft Expression Studio. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Article has been substantially changed; a new AfD would be necessary it it's still considered problematic. Sandstein 06:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help) (Links to where coverage begins on page 2 of this article; click on "page 3" in the article for the rest of the coverage){{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) (Coverage begins on page 3, and continues on page 4)The result was keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Selfpromo Night of the Big Wind talk 18:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
1. no indep. ref. 2. no indication of notability 3. after several years 4. Advert Widefox ( talk) 00:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Samuraiantiqueworld ( talk) 09:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The current article has sourced commentary whose deletion would be a detriment to wikipedia, and Rename is a variation of Keep. In particular, since the franchise does not have a series article yet, I will also go ahead and Rename the current article to Well World series, which would have been my recommendation if I had participated in the AfD. Such a rename allows for more fictional material (balanced with real-world information) to be added to this franchise's wikipedia coverage without having to create new articles for such. – sgeureka t• c 06:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
No real world notability shown. No sources other than the fiction books it was created for. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete without prejudice. When he plays for a senior team and a source can be provided for it, the article can be restored or recreated. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable footballer who is yet to play in a fully professional league. Hasn't played for Le Mans first team despite what the article says having checked the comprehensive French football databases here and here. J Mo 101 ( talk) 00:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. Already done a week and a half ago. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The association is not notable - the sources include the associations own pages, and an LDS article only affirming that the organization exists. And a broken link as well. There is zero actual notability for this "association" Collect ( talk) 13:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
IAC, the Grows's company's press release is from a company intimately knowledgeable about schorarly/professional genealogical research and buttresses a completely non-controversial assertion with regard to the Grow family of academics' involvement with the Pratt family assoc., as ultimately sourced in the article to reporting by journalist Peggy Fletcher Stack.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 18:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC) replywp:RS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. ..."
Note: HSG added "merge discussion" templates to the association page for a merge to Pratt family, and also on the Pratt family page - directing people to this page for a "merger" discussion. And later comments based on that new notice should be weighed accordingly. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Celebrity Cricket League. The discussions appears to established that the subject currently doesn't have enough coverage in reliable soruces in order to warrant a seperate article. However, consensus has established that the subject is a plausable search term, and a redirect is warranted. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable cricket team. This team isn't a professional sports team, nor does it play at what could be deemed the top level of amatuer cricket in India. It plays Twenty20 cricket, though not officially sanctioned, so fails one element of WP:CRIN. Just because actors make up its rank doesn't mean it automatically qualifies for notability and inclusion. Details about the team in the main Celebrity Cricket League article would be fine, but to give each team an article, when both historically and sportingly, it doesn't warrant it. Sometime ago WP:CRIN guidelines for clubs were revised, by my reckonking this team for celebrities to have a jolly falls quite short of them. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This failed television pilot fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix ( talk) 21:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() |
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapmin ( talk • contribs)
The result was keep. However, DoctorKubla does have a point, maybe this article was created too early. Once this event happens then perhaps this issue can be re-evaluated but at the moment there's no consensus to delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
While I personally like the idea behind this upcoming event, and it is certainly for a good cause, I don't really think it meets the notability requirements to be included as its own article. As it stands, the only places that make any mention of it are the websites that are directly connected to the event, thus it fails having reliable third party sources. In addition, as the event itself isn't scheduled to occur for nearly half a year from now, it is too early to even say how notable it will wind up being, per WP:Crystal. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Hi Rorshacma, I really appreciate the concern. Third party references have been added, so I hope this helps. I think an event that hasn't occurred still warrants a page. This is my first time creating a page, and I do appreciate all feedback.
Ehenneberger (
talk)
20:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
Delete - Third party sources seem alright, and I'm sure it'll get more coverage as it happens, but I still don't think it meets the notability guidelines in WP:EVENT, as I doubt it has enduring historical significance. I'd suggest, Ehenneberger, that you wait until after the event and then add it to the Nerdist page, since they seem to have organised the whole thing. DoctorKubla ( talk) 21:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC) reply
KEEP - As a first of its kind event, the Course of the Force has already generated substantial pre-event publicity and news coverage. It is a standalone event that is significant in the Star Wars, science fiction, and charitable worlds. It is economically significant for the cities from Santa Monica to San Diego that it will go through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.221.40 ( talk) 20:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep - The article seemed to be marketing copy, but I've been following the progress of the event and think it warrants inclusion. I made the article neutral and removed alot of the marketing wording. The Nerdist partners founded the event, but it looks to be it's own thing. I removed some of the stuff that looks unfounded or unplanned at this point, like the scheduling section. I also combined several unnecessary subcategories into one. Fluxfire01 ( talk) 02:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 17:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
A complete mess of an article about a young man who set up an events/animation company. It falls halfway between being a resume for Hatchard and a long list of activities and associations of Hotbox, his company. Most if not all the sources verify something trivial about Hotbox. There is barely anything in the references of note, certainly no in-depth, independent, reliable coverage about Hatchard. With his uncommon name you would expect to find anything that exists online, unfortunately I can't find anything to support this article. The 'notability' tag has been on the article for many months. Sionk ( talk) 22:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I wrote this article as Hatchard's company, Hotbox Studios, is very successful and has been covered by a number of reliable and independent sources. As it's founder, Hatchard is also mentioned in this articles, so I considered an article about him would meet the general notability requirement. Perhaps there is too much focus on him and not enough on the company however. Maybe the article should be titled 'Hotbox Studios' instead and give more prominence to the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystal Wilde ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 09:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not meet general notability guidelines; strictly of local interest. Miniapolis ( talk) 22:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Cloudz 679 20:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Amateur league. Fails WP:FOOTYN. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kubigula ( talk) 04:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non- notable website. Despite the original author's attempt to make this article look really impressive with lots of references, five separate references were found to be citations to the same press release published in five different magazines. Other references are to generic articles about privacy in social networks, but there is no evidence of anything on the web about this website but self-promotion by its founder. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Kilvey Hill. Sandstein 19:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Fund-raising sport event. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Spam / nn-website. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 10:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be a notable company. Article creator declined prod with explanation that it is mentioned in the national (I assume British) press. However, my own search turns up little on this company and website. The sources given in the article appear to talk about coupon sites in general, not this particular company. Safiel ( talk) 20:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Repeatedly proposed for speedy deletion but tag removed with no explanation. Questionable notability and seems to have been written by either the subject or a close representative. Admin response reqd. Steelwool ( talk) 16:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Consensus favors the notion that this topic is not sufficiently notable for its own article, but apparently we do have an article on a related subject. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Not an encyclopedia article. Hard to tell what it's about, but it seems to be about the development of a product, with a distinctly spammy feel. No independent references. AndrewWTaylor ( talk) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I'm sorry Yaloe and frankie but I disregarded your !votes because they didn't add anything to the discussion. Another "keep" !voter admitted that his !vote wasn't very strong. Add to that the nominator's admission that he was unable to evaluate non-english sources. This one's a draw. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This group seems to (at least as near as I can tell) have come and gone without much impact. It generates three mentions at Google Books, zero in Google News, and most of the hits on Google in general are either Wiki mirrors or are sites that basically cue to a set of words. My best guess is that the group was a "flash in the pan" prior to the first round of elections in Afghanistan and that it never managed to do anything of note (there were a number of organziations like this in the mid-2000s in Afghanistan as near as I can tell). Even the sole source cited seems to back this up...it seems to imply that this was nothing more than a temporary working group among a group of minor parties. Tyrenon ( talk) 22:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Website of questionable notability. Google news search shows zero results. Standard search shows primary and unreliable sources, directory links, and social media mentions, but no significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski ( talk) 19:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
There is nothing wrong with my article. FICGS does get google search results. I also updated my sources with independent pages. Such article does exist in the Italian wikipedia and there is no complaint there.
This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because the article is about new correspondence chess organization. FICGS is responsible for organizing correspondence chess championship similar to the ICCF World Correspondence Chess Championship. I am not affiliate with FICGS by any means.
I want to mention that similar article is written in Italian and my article is the English version. The Italian article is accepted, the English version should be accepted too. FICGS is hosting World Championship tournament which is the second most important event in the world of correspondence chess after the ICCF World Correspondence Chess Championship. The last 3 FICGS events were won by ICCF and FIDE recognized chess grandmasters - Edward Kotlyanskiy and Eros Riccio. This article gives information about correspondence chess. FICGS is mentioned in the main article Correspondence chess and I think it deserves place in wikipedia.
There are several other articles mentioning FICGS like Eros Riccio and Edward Kotlyanskiy. Both players are recognized as FICGS champions by Chessbase. Chessbase Correspondence Chess Database 2010 and 2011 includes correspondence chess games, played in FICGS by international masters and grandmasters, recognized by ICCF and FIDE.
I think the articles serves a purpose to inform about new possibilities like playing advanced chess, invented by Garry Kasparov and also giving information about international correspondence chess event, recognized by Chessbase and other Correspondence database creators. Without this article the information in the main article Correspondence chess and the articles Eros Riccio and Edward Kotlyanskiy is incomplete.
Therefore I think the article shouldn't be deleted. I as the author of the article am open to suggestions about improving the quality of my article. Dimvass ( talk) 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to HP Pavilion (computer). — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Variant of HP Pavilion (computer), no independent notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTABILITY - Five references provided; several are event listings, one is a cast list where he played a minor role, one is a page of a database (one that doesn't even mention him, due presumably to linking to a non-stable search result, but which would not confer notability even if he did.) Subject gets zero hits on Google News, google hits are his social media and his own promotion. Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not notable.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 23:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I consider the initial rationale for deletion to have been fully rebutted; however, the later delete !votes focused on the series' (as a group) failure to pass WP:LISTN and WP:N. I think that consensus was reached that it did not. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
This stub is not written like an advertisement; it is advertisements that are usually written like this stub! The whole foundation of this stub is based on weasel words and peacock terms that merely boast this series of video games while neither this article nor any other of the three Ground Control articles have supplied a shred of evidence that this game is ever well-received. In fact my Bing searches suggest otherwise. Fleet Command ( talk) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Note that the number of views or the number of google hits are not considered valid arguments for keeping. henrik• talk 10:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails wp:NMUSIC. I can't find any mentions on a Google search, or a Google news search. Looking at the article's references:
Now let's look at the Earshot chart references (8 and 9)...
I have corrected the source 4. It's now working and it's a reliable source according to WP:V. Source 1 even if it is self-published can be considered as reliable and used as a reference in similar cases because it cites raw-data such as place of stay and job type. Source 2 you are right is a primary source. Alone it cannot stay. In this case it is supported by reliable 3rd party references. In my opinion it can stay. -- ★ Pikks ★ MsG 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. henrik• talk 10:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable producer JayJay Talk to me 03:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notalbe building, can't seem to find references to suggest notability JayJay Talk to me 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, also fails WP:NBAND JayJay Talk to me 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Footballer who hasn't played at senior level for a professional team, also fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds he has played in the Norwegian Cup. However, his single appearance to date was in the early stages of the competition against lower division club. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. B music ian 06:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Strange article that seems to be a recreation of an earlier removed page (tagged in september 2011), and copyvio from a Facebookpage (dubbed the official website). And apprearing here just before the official launch on 28 March 2012. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The argument that there is not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to give an accurate portrayal as required by WP:BLP is perhaps not the most common, but I find it persuasive. The arguments by Gatoclass et. al, has shown coverage weakly sufficient to establish notability. However, I am persuaded by the argumentation that the sourcing falls short of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV requirements for an accurate portrayal to such a degree that it's not possible to write a policy conforming article. henrik• talk 11:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
No evidence of any substantial notability; article uses dubious and self-published sources for all information about her (the NCCAM source is just used for a definition, and is arguably WP:SYNTH, since it doesn't actually discuss Eden's ideas). Seems like a marginal article at best, and lack of good sources is likely an insurmountable problem, which a look at Google Scholar and Books only confirms.
It's probably also worth noting that the lack of any reliable sources gives this article major WP:BLP issues. 86.** IP ( talk) 17:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Apology and comment Gatoclass, sorry I didn't mean to personalise this disagreement by saying "you (specifically) 've had quite long enough..." That was a poor choice of words and i meant to say that the authors/defenders generally of this article have had sufficient time to establish notability. However, I agree with Agricola that you are confusing the notability of an author with the (alleged) notability of (some, or one of) her books. Earlier in this discussion you also (seem to) have argued that because the field of energy medicine is notable, Eden is. What this all adds up to for me, is that Eden's book itself might deserve an article, or deserves to be used as a source in the energy medicine article as one of the "seminal" works on the topic, but none of it necessitates an article on her. If it does, wouldn't WP rapidly fill up with stub articles saying: "Person X is an author. S/he wrote insert name of book here" which would be no more helpful than a simple redirect. Famousdog ( talk) 09:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
More comments (sorry this is probably getting tedious now) DGG, while I agree with your opinion that this article should be deleted [duplicate !vote] your argument that Publishers Weekly is "selective" doesn't work. PW is a US-based trade magazine for the publishing industry and therefore probably "selective" for US publications (like Eden's, which as I've argued previously, don't have much of a presence outside the US). If you factor in that every country on earth probably has a trade magazine for the local book trade (e.g. The Bookseller in the UK), I bet you can find a review of pretty much any "of the English language books published" in the trade mag for its local market. That's why trade journals are not RS. They are promoting sh*t. Non-RS links cannot and should not be used to establish notability.
Gatoclass, at the risk of incurring your ire, you still seem to be using the argument "notable book = notable author". But your arguments regarding the notability of the book rest on numbers in libraries or rankings on Amazon. Amazon is in the business of books and how they rank them is mired in mystery, so that's not a good argument. Regarding numbers in libraries, there are lots of copies of the UK phone directory in libraries, but its not a notable work of literature. Numbers of copies doesn't = notability. Although the two factors are probably correlated, other factors such as price come into it. Also, politically-motivated organisations such as the Discovery Institute can flood libraries with propagandist crap like this further distorting that connection. I'm not suggesting that this is the case here, just trying to explain why this argument is problematic.
What I actually think is going on here is this: If some hack were to write a book about a quite obscure topic about which there were few books available, it would undoubtedly become "seminal" in that field by the simple fact of its availability in the absence of other books. Maybe Eden's book is incorrect, full of errors or misrepresents energy medicine completely? How would we know? The fact that it is widely available and aggressively promoted means little as to whether the book or the author is notable. Your argument is further watered down to: "widely available book (or only book in field) = notable book = notable author". This is not good enough.
How about this: Look at her co-authors. She has collaborated with David Feinstein on 3 of her 4 books. Yet he doesn't have an article. How do we know the ideas presented in these books are Eden's and not Feinstein's? Maybe Eden is a ghost-writer? Maybe Feinstein is? We don't know anything about this person because reliable references to her are so scant. What about her other co-author, Gary Craig? He doesn't have an article either and his name simply redirects to Emotional Freedom Techniques, the particular subject with which he is connected. Donna Eden should similarly redirect to Energy medicine because she is a proponent of that (possibly notable) idea, but not seemingly notable in her own right. Famousdog ( talk) 12:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment There are unsupported assertions here that give a false impression. For example, " ACEP Qualified psychologists? Don't make me laugh. " followed by a running down of ACEP by saying ACEP is really mentioned and then saying it is promotion of quackery. I looked at the actual people listed in the reference: There are people with PhDs from respected US universities. so, yes, the people listed are qualified psychologists. The rest veers off-topic as a means of supporting the assertion. A second example is the assertion that Eden is essentially only [if at all] of significance in America ["I searched WorldCat for copies of Energy Medicine in the UK, Germany, New Zealand and several other countries and found only a handful of copies. Literally countable on the fingers of one hand. This woman is only known in fringe circles, only cited by fringe authors, only written about in local (American) rags and only when she's promoting a book or a workshop. "]. I already gave a German book review above. In addition, using a German search engine [Allesklar], I found a Swiss psychologist and practitioner of alternative medicine commenting on Eden [58], including quoting a founder of the American Holistic Medical Association touting energy medicine. [59]; there are translations into German of two books by her listed at Amazon.de [and two Spanish translations at Amazon.es]; A quick search in KVK [a German tool rather than WorldCat, which is American] of European academic libraries came up with more than ten copies in just Germany, with more books in Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, Poland, and the Netherlands [including Dutch, Danish, and Polish translations]; there are also some "practitioners" who say they base their work on Eden, and a forum that discusses one of her books. Now, this is not massive and not the sort of sites we use for citations, but it does discredit the assertions I quoted. Kdammers ( talk) 06:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in light of new evidence--with thanks to Dirtlawyer Drmies ( talk) 01:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Puff piece for a non-notable mayoral candidate and real estate developer. His jobs and aspirations do not make him notable, and neither does the coverage he generated. Drmies ( talk) 17:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Lobster Johnson#Bibliography. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
several templates, but no significant content Night of the Big Wind talk 22:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non- notable company. Appears to be part of an overall promotion campaign related to all of founder Rami Ghandour's enterprises. The only glimmer of independent coverage for this company is a minor lawsuit that was eventually dropped prior to trial. All other citations are to company-released press releases or business directory listings. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 16:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played for Swedish youth national teams, which of course does not provide notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons:
The result was keep. B music ian 07:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article. No existence confirmed.
Willy Weazley 15:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Original research. Man in the street ( talk) 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced BLP, created by editor with conflict of interest (website developer for Lam's dance school), non-notable dance instructor, functions primarily as advert for dance school. Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to François Sagat. A lengthy discussion that has led to fairly standard result. No one in the discussion challenged the director's notability, while there has been no convincing evidence that the sources prove notability of the film itself. While the discussion waxed and waned, I think that the ultimate consensus was the reliably sourced material be summarized at the director's article. Since that has occurred, I have simply closed this as redirect. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFILM, text borders on the promotional. Negligible GNews coverage, and what's there is mostly presskit rewrites. All sourcing, referencing, and external links are promotional. Porn puffery if not outright spam. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply
with the press release'sa 2-part gay pornographic film co-directed and produced by French iconic pornstar François Sagat, his first as a film director and producer. Incubus, conceived, written, costumed, creatively directed by Sagat and co-directed and mentored by Brian Mills was shot in San Francisco for release in two parts by TitanMen.
Not to mention that the article'sThe film is Sagat’s first foray behind the camera in the role of Creative Director. The first of the two part series of films will release mid-December as TitanMen’s holiday blockbuster film. Incubus was conceived, written, costumed, art directed and stars the world’s most iconic gay pornstar, Francois Sagat.
is virtually a verbatim copy of the same press release'sThe film is an artistic, hypnotic journey that follows François Sagat's journey into a macabre world, never knowing if it's real or just the result of tormented dreams he has. Half-man, half-satyr, the two realms of Sagat's psyche battle it out on the screen
Not quite bad enough to speedy as a copyvio, but more than enough to establish that this is just warmed-over hype for a commercial product with no significant, independent coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC) replyThe film follows his journey into a macabre world, never knowing if it’s real or just the tormented dreams within his head. Half- man, half-satyr the two realms of Francois Sagat psyche battle it out on the screen.
delete, its simply not noteworthy,no coverage in independant media 125.239.109.92 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC). — 125.239.109.92 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
attempt at counting consensus obviously not binding, and not an actual vote count, but the discussion above is somewhat convoluted, with people offering different opinions at different times. try to keep reasoning short here for readability, and post full discussion level stuff above?
Keep only werldwayd ( talk) 03:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC) reply
merge or delete notable only through relationship to director, marginal sources, and would not clutter artist's page Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Extremely little information available on this incident, if any at all. It is only mentioned in a couple of blogs that list hundreds of alleged UFO sightings without any details whatsoever, besides from the picture uploaded by the article's creator. Even conceding that the episode itself might have existed (which is impossible to corroborate as there are no reliable sources of it anywhere that I could find), it doesn't appear to have any degree of notability beyond the thousands of reported UFO sightings that take place every year, let alone enough significance to warrant inclusion at List of UFO sightings or its associatted UFO template, alongside highly notable events such as those detailed at the Mantell UFO incident or Roswell UFO incident articles. Athilea ( talk) 09:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus.
Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non notable MMA event, no lasting historical significance, fails WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:MMAEVENT, WP:ROUTINE Mt king (edits) 10:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
That being said, let's assume your charge is true, and MMA events aren't covered in Britain because the British government, media and public uniformly hate them. So stipulated, so what? The GNG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We don't get to say that the GNG doesn't count so long as a subject "deserves" an article. The answer to a lack of reliable, significant coverage isn't that we let a subject have an article anyway. The answer is that the subject doesn't qualify for an article. Ravenswing 05:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
No references of notability. Johnduhart ( talk) 23:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Possible BLP issues related to implying the husband killed her, relatively small news item as far as deaths go. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 SmartSE ( talk) 16:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
1. Notability not established 2. Advertising 3. Cannot verify claims Widefox ( talk) 09:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Very short film on YouTube by non-notable who appears to be the whole team in one person. Unreferenced. PROD removed by IP - presumed to be the author. Peridon ( talk) 08:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Vanispamcruftisement. This Autobiography is a puff piece advertising an actor who lacks significant roles in multiple notable productions. duffbeerforme ( talk) 08:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete JamesBWatson ( talk) 14:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
non-notable musical, no reliable reviews, only claim to notability is inclusion in Edinburgh Fringe Festival (which has over 2500 shows). Google news search turns up nothing. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 22:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The description is in a rather unknown publication and there is no indication of a holotype being designated and no secondary taxonomic databases seem to have included it either as a taxon or as a name. Also see Petaurista mechukaensis. Shyamal ( talk) 05:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The species does not appear to have been formally described with a type designation or published in a peer-reviewed journal of standing. In the 5 years since this supposed description, there is no other major taxonomic database that includes the species. No hits on Google Scholar either. Also see Petaurista mishmiensis. Shyamal ( talk) 04:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Delete for WP:Notability Delete for WP:Notablity. Standard constuction of the day that had no influence on future designs. None of the vessels had a service career or incident that would rise to the level of a stand-alone article. Much of the inline citations refer to different vessel lists from the same web site. While the author has done considerable research in good faith other articles from this editor all lack the comprehensive criteria of B class. Mariepr ( talk) 03:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. joe decker talk to me 06:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Page was previously speedy deleted as a promo under G11, and the author, User:ParanoiaMethod was given a block for repeatedly removing the speedy template. In good faith, the editor in question is a) new and b) seems to speak English as a second language, not fluently. When block expired, the author recreated this page. It was PRODed as an unsourced BLP. Author left PROD up for a time, and added sources. Author now claims that sources are sufficient and has removed the PROD tag. The sources fail WP:RS as nearly as I and a WP:BEFORE search can tell, so I'm nominating for deletion. The sources include such wonders as the subject's Myspace page and Deviantart page. - Jorgath ( talk) ( contribs) 03:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. I have redirected the article to the relevant section of the main iPad article where this topic is already covered. Any further content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I think anyone's initial reaction to this AfD is likely to be "Of course this article merits keeping! It's common sense!" Without reviewing the article and its history, I too would have agreed with this sentiment. But I now believe differently.
This article was created over a year ago, apparently in the belief that there would be such a crush of information regarding public reaction to the iPad, that an article separate from iPad would be necessary. Good reasoning, but the past 13 months have demonstrated otherwise. Here is the status right now:
Those are my reasons supporting deletion of this article, but two other editors have advanced two straw men that I wish to address.
However, as long as the topic (of being outdated) has been brought up by others, let me point out something about the article that is informative to its ostensible importance. Before I came along here, this article--an article on the reception to the most popular computer in history--had only been edited only 27 times in over a year. I think it's clear that this article is outdated because it is so inconsequential. If it served any purpose at all, editors would be updating it, but they are not.
Deleting this article will not result in the loss of content, it will simply mean reducing the orphan load by one. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 02:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Microsoft Expression Studio. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Article has been substantially changed; a new AfD would be necessary it it's still considered problematic. Sandstein 06:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help) (Links to where coverage begins on page 2 of this article; click on "page 3" in the article for the rest of the coverage){{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) (Coverage begins on page 3, and continues on page 4)The result was keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Selfpromo Night of the Big Wind talk 18:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 22:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
1. no indep. ref. 2. no indication of notability 3. after several years 4. Advert Widefox ( talk) 00:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Samuraiantiqueworld ( talk) 09:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The current article has sourced commentary whose deletion would be a detriment to wikipedia, and Rename is a variation of Keep. In particular, since the franchise does not have a series article yet, I will also go ahead and Rename the current article to Well World series, which would have been my recommendation if I had participated in the AfD. Such a rename allows for more fictional material (balanced with real-world information) to be added to this franchise's wikipedia coverage without having to create new articles for such. – sgeureka t• c 06:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
No real world notability shown. No sources other than the fiction books it was created for. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was delete without prejudice. When he plays for a senior team and a source can be provided for it, the article can be restored or recreated. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable footballer who is yet to play in a fully professional league. Hasn't played for Le Mans first team despite what the article says having checked the comprehensive French football databases here and here. J Mo 101 ( talk) 00:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. Already done a week and a half ago. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The association is not notable - the sources include the associations own pages, and an LDS article only affirming that the organization exists. And a broken link as well. There is zero actual notability for this "association" Collect ( talk) 13:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
IAC, the Grows's company's press release is from a company intimately knowledgeable about schorarly/professional genealogical research and buttresses a completely non-controversial assertion with regard to the Grow family of academics' involvement with the Pratt family assoc., as ultimately sourced in the article to reporting by journalist Peggy Fletcher Stack.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 18:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC) replywp:RS: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. ..."
Note: HSG added "merge discussion" templates to the association page for a merge to Pratt family, and also on the Pratt family page - directing people to this page for a "merger" discussion. And later comments based on that new notice should be weighed accordingly. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Celebrity Cricket League. The discussions appears to established that the subject currently doesn't have enough coverage in reliable soruces in order to warrant a seperate article. However, consensus has established that the subject is a plausable search term, and a redirect is warranted. ( non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Non-notable cricket team. This team isn't a professional sports team, nor does it play at what could be deemed the top level of amatuer cricket in India. It plays Twenty20 cricket, though not officially sanctioned, so fails one element of WP:CRIN. Just because actors make up its rank doesn't mean it automatically qualifies for notability and inclusion. Details about the team in the main Celebrity Cricket League article would be fine, but to give each team an article, when both historically and sportingly, it doesn't warrant it. Sometime ago WP:CRIN guidelines for clubs were revised, by my reckonking this team for celebrities to have a jolly falls quite short of them. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC) reply
A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This failed television pilot fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix ( talk) 21:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply