![]() |
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe the article lacks this fails WP:GNG due to the lack of coverage from reliable, third party sources. Aoba47 ( talk) 00:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Eastwood International School Beirut. Consensus to merge, but it sounds like the merge has already happened, so I'll just redirect the title. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose a merge & rename of Eastwood College with Eastwood International School Beirut as according to this website https://eastwoodschools.com/, they are merely campuses of the one school. Eastwood International School Beirut mentions Eastwood College in its own article along with them both being campuses of the same school. UaMaol ( talk) 23:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Actor who has questionable notability. I can't find him in the list of credits for the film he was apparently in (I checked the IMDB link that was there and he wasn't mentioned) All the links I can find are wiki mirrors. Wgolf ( talk) 23:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 01:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article about a neighbourhood within a city, not properly referenced as passing WP:GEOLAND. The rule for populated places is basically that the city itself is inherently notable, while the individual neighbourhoods within the city get their own standalone articles only if they can be well-referenced to enough reliable source coverage to properly establish that they actually have any standalone notability independent of the city. But of the three "references" that were here before I initiated this discussion, all were garbage that had to be struck: one was a circular reference to another Wikipedia article, and the other two were both badly formatted (in completely different ways) links to the same self-published website of a school in the neighbourhood -- which means zero of them were to reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. Bearcat ( talk) 23:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Notability not asserted, can't find substantive independent sources Reywas92 Talk 22:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 01:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article has no sources except internal sources and links to another party's website. There appears to be no elected officials and no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 22:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
We do not need articles, or even redirects, for gangrene of every part of the body. Although medical conditions are generally deemed notable, this is not a medical condition, it's just silly. Natureium ( talk) 22:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Another Billy Hathorn Louisianan with no assertion of notability. Sourced to non-independent obituary. A nice resume but a routine job and no significant coverage. Reywas92 Talk 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This draft was moved to mainspace by an editor who is apparently a paid employee of the company, without ever passing through AfC review. As a result, editors have not yet had an opportunity to evaluate whether it is notable by our standards, so here is one. It gets a few hits on Gnews, mostly relating to its acquisition by GPV International; and no verifiable hits on Gbooks. I cannot see how that takes it anywhere near satisfying WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Filmmaker who falls under too soon. He so far has just one film. Will he be notable enough someday? Perhaps. But for now a delete as he is too soon. Wgolf ( talk) 20:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article only links to two sources that say this party exists. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into Constitution Party (United States). Toa Nidhiki05 20:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
As with her husband, whose article was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Tolchinsky, this is a heavily advertorialized biography of a person whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. Just like David's article, this was an overgrown linkfarm of WP:ELNO violations to the self-published websites of people and organizations named in the article, until I cleaned it up just now — and the actual footnoted references are primary sources, not notability-supporting media coverage. As always, the notability test hinges less on what the article says, and more on how well the article references what it says to reliable sources. I also still suspect some form of conflict of interest editing here, as Debra and David were both created by the same user, and the only other contributions that user ahs ever made to Wikipedia at all that didn't directly involve the surname "Tolchinsky" still pertained to a colleague of theirs — so even if the article can actually be salvaged with better sources than I've been able to find, it would still have to be fundamentally overhauled for WP:NOTADVERT compliance anyway. Bearcat ( talk) 20:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article only links to the websites, a self-published source. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into the article for the national Working Families Party. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Seems like this is a notable work after all and the text quality issues mentioned in the deletion nomination are being worked on Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I nominated this article for deletion considering the following facts:
(1) It was written like a promotional advertisement to the operating system and the person who created it. After some years after the last AfD, this article still has a lot of problems that evidence the apparent lack of notability and how POV it is.
It is enough to quote some parts to see why it is like an advert:
(1.a) Biased wording.
SkyOS is the result of over ten years of work by Robert Szeleney and volunteers.
The above statement was written alike "how hard was the 'good work' of the developer(s)". An editor unrelated to the subject of the article would have written something like "SkyOS was being developed by ... since/during ..." and cited a source, something this phrase does not have. Of course, it could be rewritten if the article would be notable, but again, here there is no sources.
(1.b) Promotional.
So much attention, in fact, that by the end of that same year, the SkyOS community had tripled in size, and Szeleney had hundreds of active beta testers downloading and testing his twice-monthly releases.
(1.c) Fanatic and "garage band" POV.
A young man at the university, Szeleney and several friends began the "Sky Operating System" as an experiment in OS design. As the years progressed and the other founding members of SkyOS became distant from the project, Szeleney continued work on the operating system in his spare time.
This looks like the same case of WP:GARAGEBAND but applied to developers of an obscure operating system as the crew and the software itself as the band.
(1.d) Written from the perspective of the main developer and anecdotal issues unrelated to the article.
Szeleney's full-time job was in automation programming, and he already had a fair understanding of operating system design. But he continued to use SkyOS as a learning device, releasing four versions under an open source license.
Because of significant differences at the source level, Szeleney stopped thinking of what was under development as the fifth version of his operating system, and the name "SkyOS 5.0" was rebranded to simply "SkyOS". A more professional demeanor was taken throughout the project, and Szeleney even considered incorporating under the name "Djinnworks".
Here (I guess the developer himself) wrote what was in his mind but as 3rd person to mask the fact he wrote those quotes himself, trying to show the reader as it was written by someone else.
(2) Almost every source cited is from the (defunct) website of the article's subject, so here we have self-published ( WP:SELFPUBLISH) and primary ( WP:PRIMARY) sources, therefore the neutrality and factual accuracy could be disputed.
As of 4 March 2019 there are 14 references, from which 12th is the only one independent to the subject and the remaining 13 sources are citations to (archived copies of) pages of skyos.org, the former official website of the operating system. The only independent source is a broken link ( can be found in Internet Archive here) and it directed to a comment on a brief entry of OSNews, but not to the article itself, so it could be more questionable as reliable source.
(3) There are parts without any cited reliable source.
History does not have any independent and reliable source, and most of it does not even have any cited source. Subsection "Components", "SkyFS" and "Porting applications" among others also does not cite any sources.
(4) First and second AfDs were flooded by IPs and new-registered users who argued (or better said, voted) things in a way they did not provide any valid argument, such as:
(4.a)
It's a long-standing article (active since at least 2004) about a popular, actively-developed piece of software, and it gives relevant and non-biased information. It is by no means an advertisement. Take a look at the content, and even the page history: nothing here is an advertisement any more than the OS X page is an advertisement. And as to irrelevancy, try searching for articles containing "skyos". At least fifteen computer-related articles mention it ON WIKIPEDIA. I think a user with otherwise no history on Wikipedia has learned the procedures for deletion and is now wasting our time. Alex Forster, 68.32.200.186 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This user argued that the article is notable because it was created long time ago, because it is supposedly popular (what is popular and how, I do not know, and also without citing references to that claim). Not valid arguments at all. Also saying that it is relevant, non-biased and not-an-advertisement does not magically make it that way. The user after diverted to something unrelated, that is another article (it does not matter if the other article is or not biased, the article discussed in the AfD was "SkyOS", not "OS X"). Finally argues that being mentioned in another Wikpedia articles makes it also notable, but let's consider that is frequent to POV-pushers to try to make their POV articles look like notable by adding links to it from another Wikipedia pages.
(4.b)
Strong Keep Removed the critism section because of complete wrong and therefore irrelevant information. (see articles dicussion page for more details) Robert Szeleney, 90.146.34.54 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The main developer himself removed content, what was conflict of interest.
(4.c)
Keep I agree with Peter above me, this is not a form of advertising, if you think so then you need to deleted half the articles on wikipedia.... Liam Dawe — 82.46.55.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC).
Lots of comments like this one above were made, who can be depicted as fanatic, without providing any valid argument.
(4.d)
Keep Seems to be a significant project with enough media coverage. Given the smarts they're showing, I predict that this will be a notable OS when released, so why delete an article we'll have to recreate later? (BTW, SkyOS is not open-source, and is intended to be a commercial product one day. Also, the article needs a bit of copyediting.) CWC 13:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Here we have a personal opinion and connection to the subject. It says that it is "significant" and has "enough media coverage", but where are the sources to confirm that claims? Also it WP:BALLed affirming it "will be a more notable". Not valid at all.
(4.e)
Finally let's quote the following statement who depicts well why popularity is not notability and the lack of valid sources. Being linked by <insert here> website does not mean it is notable.
Comment: Wikipedia wiki-linking itself or "Google search results" are invalid forms of notability tests. Wikipedia requires reliable references from valid third parties. The only one approaching a notability test is the said Magazine cover you added. However, this lacks any details about the magazine or the contents, also making it invalid. If you have an real references, page numbers (etc), I suggest you add them to the article. Imacreditcard (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Also please take in mind the "Wikipedia effect": when a completely unknown subject without reliable sources becomes known after it gained an article in Wikipedia, so after that other websites began to talk about the subject on the basis of the Wikipedia coverage, which in turn begins to link to that other sites as the "independent sources".
Therefore, I consider the AfDs did not have any valid argument supporting to keep the article.
After the AfDs, the issues were not fixed at all.
Zerabat ( talk) 18:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
*Delete Per nom, it is really a bullshit article! --
Editor-1 (
talk)
04:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet notability criteria Kid Fabulous ( talk) 19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Anyone who feels a redirect is a good compromise can simply be bold and do it outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Award with very little notability, receives little to no attention. Prod removed with a claim of what is basically inherited notability (the awards in total are notable, so every individual award is notable). Searching for sources is hampered by the fact that the award is not called the "Canadian Screen Award for Best Hair", but for "Achievement in Hair", but even so there is very little to be found from independent sources, apart from some sources which list this one without further comment (i.e. "passing mentions"). 40 Google hits [15], two passing Google News mentions [16].
Note that, according to the main article, "The Canadian Screen Awards has roughly 130 categories in total. ", so it is not surprising that some will not be really notable: it looks as if of the 100 TV categories, about 14 have a separate article at the moment. So this is not a deletion that will break some complete series. Fram ( talk) 14:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. All over the map. There is no consensus as to whether this meets GNG or not. There are those who support the idea that GNG is only criteria by which to judge notability, and there are those who feel that Wikipedia should present encyclopedic information on topics that are deemed inherently notable (example: Olympic athletes, but in this case those meeting FOOTY), no matter depth of coverage. I doubt further discussion will resolve the dichotomy. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 13:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Technically unreferenced, but if the information in the article is correct the subject never played in a fully professional league thereby failing WP:NFOOTY, and I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG. Ymblanter ( talk) 11:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable porn star. Only has nominations for minor awards and mainstream appearances were minor as well. She's not even listed on IMDb for the two episodes of the TV series she was supposedly appeared in. Fails GNG, Pornbio and other applicable notability guidelines. Also the article has BLP problems with supposed real name of performer and unsourced name of her young child. Wikiuser20102011 ( talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bradford Lyttle. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article only links to self-published sources. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 18:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article only links to self-published sources as well as a dead link to election results. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of an IP user, their reasoning is that this appears to be a hoax. [19] Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article only has one source and does not appear to have any elected officers. It also apparently is defunct and doesn’t seem to have any coverage in reliable, non-trivial sources. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
FORK and fancruft, not stand alone worthy. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage to get over WP:GNG. Her strongest notability claim is having been shortlisted for minor, non-notable literary awards, and her sourcing consists of two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all; two unrecoverable dead links in limited-distribution media outlets that would be fine for supplementary verification if she'd already cleared GNG on stronger sources, but aren't really makers of a GNG pass all by themselves if they're the best sources on offer; and a short book review in a library association newsletter. Nothing stated in the article gets her over the more achievement-based author criteria, but the sources aren't strong enough to give her the "notable just because sources exist" pass either. Bearcat ( talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn by WikiDan61 (nominator) based on prior AFD results.
Non-notable book. This apparently self-published book (Morlock Publishing lists only titles by Corcoran on its website [1]) won the Prometheus Award for 2018, but otherwise I cannot find any significant independent coverage of the book. The Prometheus Award is not recognized as a major book award, either for general literature, or even for science fiction literature. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 17:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Happy to restore/draft if he ends up playing ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable amateur ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY yet or to otherwise meet WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he ever does. DJSasso ( talk) 16:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ( talk) 19:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Only one source here does not link to election results or the party website. A quick google search failed to turn up any significant, non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 16:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Independent American Party. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article is unsourced and has no real content. Does not appear to be notable or to have been covered in a non-trivial manner in sources. Toa Nidhiki05 16:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article has no sources and barely any content. Does not appear to be notable, nor does it seem have to have had non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Minor local mall. Was deleted back in 2014, and nothing has changed to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This is some covert WP:ARTSPAM for a term that, as far as I can tell, isn't notable, widely used or covered outside of the companies trying to push it. Also WP:ESSAY definitely applies. Praxidicae ( talk) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) InvalidOS talk 13:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
While accomplished, doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. I can't find any citation count, and she doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria for NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 12:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Carnegie Mellon University. Sandstein 17:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Prod removed by article creator. However, no independent sources showing notability. Having some notable contributors does not contribute to notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I was removing refs to International Policy Digest, a website that invites submissions from the general public and publishes them with a disclaimer that the content isn't reliable. Then I opened our article on it, finding it has zero references and just an external link to the site itself. It has been tagged for lack of references for more than a two years, [21] and no references have been supplied. I preformed a Notability search via Google News as well as general Google search. I was unable to find any reliable sources providing coverage about International Policy Digest. Skimming the history, it looks like substantially all content was added by a pair of SPAs, and deleted as unsourced puffery. The remaining content is little more than an unsourced business directory listing, still with a whiff of puffery. It looks like a clear delete for failing Notability guidelines, and because Wikipedia is NOT a promotional or indiscriminate business directory. Alsee ( talk) 10:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 11:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the sources in the article are primary sources. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. The award he won is not notable. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 13:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 00:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. All "delete" !votes air concerns about the article's current state. However, AFD is not for cleanup and Spinningspark presents several RS that can be used to improve the article. Randykitty ( talk) 11:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Unexplained prod removal. Whole article is a selection of statistics ( WP:NOTSTATS) from a 30-year-old government report, so I'm not sure what the purpose of keeping such an outdated topic is. I don't think just finding updated stats would be a good article topic, with no similar articles for other states, but similar stats at List of U.S. states by carbon dioxide emissions. Reywas92 Talk 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Reywas92 Talk 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 10:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus was established de facto after the Turkish invasion in 1974 and de jure (leaving aside the actual legality of it) in 1983, therefore it cannot have participated in any conflict prior to that; its participation in the War on Terror is unreferenced, and as an unrecognized puppet state, highly unlikely at that Constantine ✍ 08:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 10:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no source to prove that this group of people has any notability. Also, the cited source says that there are 244 people born in Serbia living in Finland as of 2018. But, that doesn't mean they are all Serbs. I guess most of them are Albanians born in Kosovo, and this article is about Serbs. So, it is not clear if there are any Serbs in Finland at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Coffee and Cigarettes#Renée. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Actress with just 2 roles. Only one of them is even on Wikipedia. It seems that her notable role is in a segment of an anthology film called Coffee and Cigarettes and if not deleted should be a redirect to there. Can't find anything else that cries notability for her. Wgolf ( talk) 00:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS, run-of-the-mill fire that is of no long-lasting importance other than to the local community. There are probably tens of such fires a week around the world. Step hen 02:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 10:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Non notable bus route. There's a lot of unsourced information with regards to the Gravelly Industrial Park diversion (NXWM would've put out a press release but I can't find anything) and while information on previous vehicles used is slightly interesting, it is uncited and not particularly pertinent to the article as a whole. RÆDWALD E| T 00:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe the article lacks this fails WP:GNG due to the lack of coverage from reliable, third party sources. Aoba47 ( talk) 00:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Eastwood International School Beirut. Consensus to merge, but it sounds like the merge has already happened, so I'll just redirect the title. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose a merge & rename of Eastwood College with Eastwood International School Beirut as according to this website https://eastwoodschools.com/, they are merely campuses of the one school. Eastwood International School Beirut mentions Eastwood College in its own article along with them both being campuses of the same school. UaMaol ( talk) 23:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Actor who has questionable notability. I can't find him in the list of credits for the film he was apparently in (I checked the IMDB link that was there and he wasn't mentioned) All the links I can find are wiki mirrors. Wgolf ( talk) 23:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 01:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article about a neighbourhood within a city, not properly referenced as passing WP:GEOLAND. The rule for populated places is basically that the city itself is inherently notable, while the individual neighbourhoods within the city get their own standalone articles only if they can be well-referenced to enough reliable source coverage to properly establish that they actually have any standalone notability independent of the city. But of the three "references" that were here before I initiated this discussion, all were garbage that had to be struck: one was a circular reference to another Wikipedia article, and the other two were both badly formatted (in completely different ways) links to the same self-published website of a school in the neighbourhood -- which means zero of them were to reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. Bearcat ( talk) 23:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Notability not asserted, can't find substantive independent sources Reywas92 Talk 22:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 01:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article has no sources except internal sources and links to another party's website. There appears to be no elected officials and no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 22:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
We do not need articles, or even redirects, for gangrene of every part of the body. Although medical conditions are generally deemed notable, this is not a medical condition, it's just silly. Natureium ( talk) 22:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Another Billy Hathorn Louisianan with no assertion of notability. Sourced to non-independent obituary. A nice resume but a routine job and no significant coverage. Reywas92 Talk 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This draft was moved to mainspace by an editor who is apparently a paid employee of the company, without ever passing through AfC review. As a result, editors have not yet had an opportunity to evaluate whether it is notable by our standards, so here is one. It gets a few hits on Gnews, mostly relating to its acquisition by GPV International; and no verifiable hits on Gbooks. I cannot see how that takes it anywhere near satisfying WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Filmmaker who falls under too soon. He so far has just one film. Will he be notable enough someday? Perhaps. But for now a delete as he is too soon. Wgolf ( talk) 20:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article only links to two sources that say this party exists. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into Constitution Party (United States). Toa Nidhiki05 20:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
As with her husband, whose article was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Tolchinsky, this is a heavily advertorialized biography of a person whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. Just like David's article, this was an overgrown linkfarm of WP:ELNO violations to the self-published websites of people and organizations named in the article, until I cleaned it up just now — and the actual footnoted references are primary sources, not notability-supporting media coverage. As always, the notability test hinges less on what the article says, and more on how well the article references what it says to reliable sources. I also still suspect some form of conflict of interest editing here, as Debra and David were both created by the same user, and the only other contributions that user ahs ever made to Wikipedia at all that didn't directly involve the surname "Tolchinsky" still pertained to a colleague of theirs — so even if the article can actually be salvaged with better sources than I've been able to find, it would still have to be fundamentally overhauled for WP:NOTADVERT compliance anyway. Bearcat ( talk) 20:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article only links to the websites, a self-published source. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into the article for the national Working Families Party. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Seems like this is a notable work after all and the text quality issues mentioned in the deletion nomination are being worked on Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I nominated this article for deletion considering the following facts:
(1) It was written like a promotional advertisement to the operating system and the person who created it. After some years after the last AfD, this article still has a lot of problems that evidence the apparent lack of notability and how POV it is.
It is enough to quote some parts to see why it is like an advert:
(1.a) Biased wording.
SkyOS is the result of over ten years of work by Robert Szeleney and volunteers.
The above statement was written alike "how hard was the 'good work' of the developer(s)". An editor unrelated to the subject of the article would have written something like "SkyOS was being developed by ... since/during ..." and cited a source, something this phrase does not have. Of course, it could be rewritten if the article would be notable, but again, here there is no sources.
(1.b) Promotional.
So much attention, in fact, that by the end of that same year, the SkyOS community had tripled in size, and Szeleney had hundreds of active beta testers downloading and testing his twice-monthly releases.
(1.c) Fanatic and "garage band" POV.
A young man at the university, Szeleney and several friends began the "Sky Operating System" as an experiment in OS design. As the years progressed and the other founding members of SkyOS became distant from the project, Szeleney continued work on the operating system in his spare time.
This looks like the same case of WP:GARAGEBAND but applied to developers of an obscure operating system as the crew and the software itself as the band.
(1.d) Written from the perspective of the main developer and anecdotal issues unrelated to the article.
Szeleney's full-time job was in automation programming, and he already had a fair understanding of operating system design. But he continued to use SkyOS as a learning device, releasing four versions under an open source license.
Because of significant differences at the source level, Szeleney stopped thinking of what was under development as the fifth version of his operating system, and the name "SkyOS 5.0" was rebranded to simply "SkyOS". A more professional demeanor was taken throughout the project, and Szeleney even considered incorporating under the name "Djinnworks".
Here (I guess the developer himself) wrote what was in his mind but as 3rd person to mask the fact he wrote those quotes himself, trying to show the reader as it was written by someone else.
(2) Almost every source cited is from the (defunct) website of the article's subject, so here we have self-published ( WP:SELFPUBLISH) and primary ( WP:PRIMARY) sources, therefore the neutrality and factual accuracy could be disputed.
As of 4 March 2019 there are 14 references, from which 12th is the only one independent to the subject and the remaining 13 sources are citations to (archived copies of) pages of skyos.org, the former official website of the operating system. The only independent source is a broken link ( can be found in Internet Archive here) and it directed to a comment on a brief entry of OSNews, but not to the article itself, so it could be more questionable as reliable source.
(3) There are parts without any cited reliable source.
History does not have any independent and reliable source, and most of it does not even have any cited source. Subsection "Components", "SkyFS" and "Porting applications" among others also does not cite any sources.
(4) First and second AfDs were flooded by IPs and new-registered users who argued (or better said, voted) things in a way they did not provide any valid argument, such as:
(4.a)
It's a long-standing article (active since at least 2004) about a popular, actively-developed piece of software, and it gives relevant and non-biased information. It is by no means an advertisement. Take a look at the content, and even the page history: nothing here is an advertisement any more than the OS X page is an advertisement. And as to irrelevancy, try searching for articles containing "skyos". At least fifteen computer-related articles mention it ON WIKIPEDIA. I think a user with otherwise no history on Wikipedia has learned the procedures for deletion and is now wasting our time. Alex Forster, 68.32.200.186 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This user argued that the article is notable because it was created long time ago, because it is supposedly popular (what is popular and how, I do not know, and also without citing references to that claim). Not valid arguments at all. Also saying that it is relevant, non-biased and not-an-advertisement does not magically make it that way. The user after diverted to something unrelated, that is another article (it does not matter if the other article is or not biased, the article discussed in the AfD was "SkyOS", not "OS X"). Finally argues that being mentioned in another Wikpedia articles makes it also notable, but let's consider that is frequent to POV-pushers to try to make their POV articles look like notable by adding links to it from another Wikipedia pages.
(4.b)
Strong Keep Removed the critism section because of complete wrong and therefore irrelevant information. (see articles dicussion page for more details) Robert Szeleney, 90.146.34.54 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The main developer himself removed content, what was conflict of interest.
(4.c)
Keep I agree with Peter above me, this is not a form of advertising, if you think so then you need to deleted half the articles on wikipedia.... Liam Dawe — 82.46.55.243 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC).
Lots of comments like this one above were made, who can be depicted as fanatic, without providing any valid argument.
(4.d)
Keep Seems to be a significant project with enough media coverage. Given the smarts they're showing, I predict that this will be a notable OS when released, so why delete an article we'll have to recreate later? (BTW, SkyOS is not open-source, and is intended to be a commercial product one day. Also, the article needs a bit of copyediting.) CWC 13:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Here we have a personal opinion and connection to the subject. It says that it is "significant" and has "enough media coverage", but where are the sources to confirm that claims? Also it WP:BALLed affirming it "will be a more notable". Not valid at all.
(4.e)
Finally let's quote the following statement who depicts well why popularity is not notability and the lack of valid sources. Being linked by <insert here> website does not mean it is notable.
Comment: Wikipedia wiki-linking itself or "Google search results" are invalid forms of notability tests. Wikipedia requires reliable references from valid third parties. The only one approaching a notability test is the said Magazine cover you added. However, this lacks any details about the magazine or the contents, also making it invalid. If you have an real references, page numbers (etc), I suggest you add them to the article. Imacreditcard (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Also please take in mind the "Wikipedia effect": when a completely unknown subject without reliable sources becomes known after it gained an article in Wikipedia, so after that other websites began to talk about the subject on the basis of the Wikipedia coverage, which in turn begins to link to that other sites as the "independent sources".
Therefore, I consider the AfDs did not have any valid argument supporting to keep the article.
After the AfDs, the issues were not fixed at all.
Zerabat ( talk) 18:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
*Delete Per nom, it is really a bullshit article! --
Editor-1 (
talk)
04:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Does not meet notability criteria Kid Fabulous ( talk) 19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Anyone who feels a redirect is a good compromise can simply be bold and do it outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Award with very little notability, receives little to no attention. Prod removed with a claim of what is basically inherited notability (the awards in total are notable, so every individual award is notable). Searching for sources is hampered by the fact that the award is not called the "Canadian Screen Award for Best Hair", but for "Achievement in Hair", but even so there is very little to be found from independent sources, apart from some sources which list this one without further comment (i.e. "passing mentions"). 40 Google hits [15], two passing Google News mentions [16].
Note that, according to the main article, "The Canadian Screen Awards has roughly 130 categories in total. ", so it is not surprising that some will not be really notable: it looks as if of the 100 TV categories, about 14 have a separate article at the moment. So this is not a deletion that will break some complete series. Fram ( talk) 14:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. All over the map. There is no consensus as to whether this meets GNG or not. There are those who support the idea that GNG is only criteria by which to judge notability, and there are those who feel that Wikipedia should present encyclopedic information on topics that are deemed inherently notable (example: Olympic athletes, but in this case those meeting FOOTY), no matter depth of coverage. I doubt further discussion will resolve the dichotomy. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 13:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Technically unreferenced, but if the information in the article is correct the subject never played in a fully professional league thereby failing WP:NFOOTY, and I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG. Ymblanter ( talk) 11:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable porn star. Only has nominations for minor awards and mainstream appearances were minor as well. She's not even listed on IMDb for the two episodes of the TV series she was supposedly appeared in. Fails GNG, Pornbio and other applicable notability guidelines. Also the article has BLP problems with supposed real name of performer and unsourced name of her young child. Wikiuser20102011 ( talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bradford Lyttle. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article only links to self-published sources. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 18:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article only links to self-published sources as well as a dead link to election results. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Nominating on behalf of an IP user, their reasoning is that this appears to be a hoax. [19] Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article only has one source and does not appear to have any elected officers. It also apparently is defunct and doesn’t seem to have any coverage in reliable, non-trivial sources. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
FORK and fancruft, not stand alone worthy. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage to get over WP:GNG. Her strongest notability claim is having been shortlisted for minor, non-notable literary awards, and her sourcing consists of two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all; two unrecoverable dead links in limited-distribution media outlets that would be fine for supplementary verification if she'd already cleared GNG on stronger sources, but aren't really makers of a GNG pass all by themselves if they're the best sources on offer; and a short book review in a library association newsletter. Nothing stated in the article gets her over the more achievement-based author criteria, but the sources aren't strong enough to give her the "notable just because sources exist" pass either. Bearcat ( talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn by WikiDan61 (nominator) based on prior AFD results.
Non-notable book. This apparently self-published book (Morlock Publishing lists only titles by Corcoran on its website [1]) won the Prometheus Award for 2018, but otherwise I cannot find any significant independent coverage of the book. The Prometheus Award is not recognized as a major book award, either for general literature, or even for science fiction literature. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 17:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
References
The result was delete. Happy to restore/draft if he ends up playing ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable amateur ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY yet or to otherwise meet WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he ever does. DJSasso ( talk) 16:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ( talk) 19:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Only one source here does not link to election results or the party website. A quick google search failed to turn up any significant, non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 16:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete and redirect to Independent American Party. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article is unsourced and has no real content. Does not appear to be notable or to have been covered in a non-trivial manner in sources. Toa Nidhiki05 16:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Article has no sources and barely any content. Does not appear to be notable, nor does it seem have to have had non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Minor local mall. Was deleted back in 2014, and nothing has changed to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This is some covert WP:ARTSPAM for a term that, as far as I can tell, isn't notable, widely used or covered outside of the companies trying to push it. Also WP:ESSAY definitely applies. Praxidicae ( talk) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) InvalidOS talk 13:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
While accomplished, doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. I can't find any citation count, and she doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria for NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 12:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Carnegie Mellon University. Sandstein 17:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Prod removed by article creator. However, no independent sources showing notability. Having some notable contributors does not contribute to notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 12:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 13:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I was removing refs to International Policy Digest, a website that invites submissions from the general public and publishes them with a disclaimer that the content isn't reliable. Then I opened our article on it, finding it has zero references and just an external link to the site itself. It has been tagged for lack of references for more than a two years, [21] and no references have been supplied. I preformed a Notability search via Google News as well as general Google search. I was unable to find any reliable sources providing coverage about International Policy Digest. Skimming the history, it looks like substantially all content was added by a pair of SPAs, and deleted as unsourced puffery. The remaining content is little more than an unsourced business directory listing, still with a whiff of puffery. It looks like a clear delete for failing Notability guidelines, and because Wikipedia is NOT a promotional or indiscriminate business directory. Alsee ( talk) 10:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 11:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the sources in the article are primary sources. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. The award he won is not notable. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Randykitty ( talk) 13:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. Versace1608 Wanna Talk? 00:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. All "delete" !votes air concerns about the article's current state. However, AFD is not for cleanup and Spinningspark presents several RS that can be used to improve the article. Randykitty ( talk) 11:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Unexplained prod removal. Whole article is a selection of statistics ( WP:NOTSTATS) from a 30-year-old government report, so I'm not sure what the purpose of keeping such an outdated topic is. I don't think just finding updated stats would be a good article topic, with no similar articles for other states, but similar stats at List of U.S. states by carbon dioxide emissions. Reywas92 Talk 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Reywas92 Talk 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 10:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Northern Cyprus was established de facto after the Turkish invasion in 1974 and de jure (leaving aside the actual legality of it) in 1983, therefore it cannot have participated in any conflict prior to that; its participation in the War on Terror is unreferenced, and as an unrecognized puppet state, highly unlikely at that Constantine ✍ 08:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 10:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no source to prove that this group of people has any notability. Also, the cited source says that there are 244 people born in Serbia living in Finland as of 2018. But, that doesn't mean they are all Serbs. I guess most of them are Albanians born in Kosovo, and this article is about Serbs. So, it is not clear if there are any Serbs in Finland at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Coffee and Cigarettes#Renée. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Actress with just 2 roles. Only one of them is even on Wikipedia. It seems that her notable role is in a segment of an anthology film called Coffee and Cigarettes and if not deleted should be a redirect to there. Can't find anything else that cries notability for her. Wgolf ( talk) 00:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS, run-of-the-mill fire that is of no long-lasting importance other than to the local community. There are probably tens of such fires a week around the world. Step hen 02:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 10:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Non notable bus route. There's a lot of unsourced information with regards to the Gravelly Industrial Park diversion (NXWM would've put out a press release but I can't find anything) and while information on previous vehicles used is slightly interesting, it is uncited and not particularly pertinent to the article as a whole. RÆDWALD E| T 00:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)