The result was Nothing. Nom did not complete AfD and has instead merged/redirected articles. Non-admin close. -- Ned Scott 22:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
These articles are "In-Universe" articles (see WP:WAF) about non-notable fictional characters on the show Coronation Street. All of these articles have been shown less than a year but haven't had the time yet to become notable per WP:FICT on per WP:SOAPS.
The full list of characters I'm nominating:
The result ended in all being redirected to List of characters from Coronation Street
The result was Keep. Sources established by Oakshade. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 04:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Nomination made on behalf of
Opinoso (
talk ·
contribs) per comment on my talk page. Prod rationale was "This article is a propaganda of a Nazi group from Southern Brazil. Actually, "Riograndense Republic" NEVER existed, since they NEVER separeted from Brazil; it was a failed movement. Nazi people are using the War of the Farrapos as a way to instigate violence and claiming an unreal "separatist" movement in Southern Brazil, which actually does not exist. The sentence posted in this article "primary motivation for the proposal is that the population of these three states, unlike the population of the other states of Brazil, is almost entirely Caucasian" has an obvious Nazi influence. THIS ARTICLE MUST BE DELETED". For my part, Neutral. Blanchardb-
Me•
MyEars•
MyMouth-timed 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
for the original revolt: Flag of the Riograndense Republic: Background on the Farrophilha revolution: Conflict between the Imperial Brazilian Regency and the cattle ranchers of the South: This reference establishes notability for the modern secessionist movement: Christian Science Monitor February 9, 1993—“Some Southern Brazilians Want Out": There is no reason to delete this article. It has notability, it is an important part of Brazilian history, there is a modern secessionist movement and the article is properly referenced. Keraunos ( talk) 06:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
1) "Riograndenser Republic" NEVER existed because it was never separed from Brazil.
2) The article War of the Farrapos already talks about this movement in Southern Brazil.
3) War of the Farrapos has NOTHING TO DO with this minor movement existing nowadays with some members in Southern Brazil. War of the Farrapos was because of economic problems in Southern Brazil, so they rebelled against the Empire.
4)Most of the soldiers in the War were poor peasants and former BLACK SLAVES. So, it's not possible to make a connection between the "Riograndenser Republic" and this nowadays Nazi movement that is trying to "preserve the German or Northern Italian heritage in Southern Brazil".
"Riograndenser Republic" is already included in the article War of the Farrapos. This "new" "movement" in Southern Brazil has nothing to do with the 19th century Riograndenser Republic and, moreover, does not have and notority outside of the "Internet world". Nobody in Brazil has never heard about this "movement". I didn't, until I find this pathetic propaganda on the Internet. Opinoso ( talk) 02:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
It was failed movements. They did not have time to establish a new country, because soon they agreed to make a peace contract with Brazil. The "Riograndenser Republic" was NOT recognized as a new country by NOBODY. It was just a failed utopia.
Many other movements took place in Brazil at that time, and they also tried to separated their regions from the Empire of Brazil. Read the article Cabanagem; they tried to separate the Northern state of Pará from Brazil in the same period they tried to separate Rio Grande do Sul. These movements have nothing to do with these crazy Nazi on the Internet. It was because of economic stuff, not race at all. The "Riograndenser Republic" NEVER existed. The same way the "Republic of Cabanagem" NEVER existed too. Both
So, to affirm that this Republic existed is a lie. And also, it's not possible to make a connection with this 200 year ago movement in Southern Brazil with the "new" nazi people in the Internet. The Republic was a failed utopia. The article War of the Farrapos already talks about it. Opinoso ( talk) 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I study Law, and as far as I know, for a country (State) exist, it must have: 1) a delimited territory, 2) a population 3)a Power
Riograndenser Republic did not have any of these itens. So, it was not a country, but a failed separatist movement. If you look any book or something similar from that period, you won't find anything like "the United States is the greatest commercial partner of Riograndenser Republic, the new country of South America". You won't find it, because it was not even recognized as a new country by nobody. Opinoso ( talk) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Air mattress. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable topic, badly written, no references -- RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 04:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete already covered at Cape Cod (disambiguation), with no real sources for either, but it certainly exists in multiple recipes with or without lime juice/sugar - but not much else can be said about it, lack of potential to be much more than a one liner better handled on the dab page. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This guy doesn't seem notable to me. According to the article he is only known as the father of Glaucus, which doesn't make him notable in his own right. Tavix ( talk) 21:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 05:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Author, meditation teacher and lecturer written up by someone with an obvious COI. Little evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 21:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
delete no notability. Moontowandi ( talk) 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
( SpiritBeing ( talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing) Hello, Actually, the subject is notable with published and verifiable book on amazon.com that has been out since 1997. If wikipedia aims that the subject have verifiable notability concerning books, there's the proof for that. As for the subject's accomplishments and notability, also, see all the pages on Google which point to the subject's name. 148,000 links are found on the subject's name. RHaworth believes that there is no notability, but there is plenty and it is enough to make the article a keeper, as you will see below. Becuase RHaworth has never heard of this person, it is simply an opinion that there is no notability, not fact. The subject actually is well known in her particular venue, which you will also see below. The subject has been in the press, written many articles that have been published in spiritual magazines and newsletters, established large organizations serving thousands of people and is well known in her field. reply
I'm not sure what COI is, but if it is about me as the writer of the article feeling moved to write about a spiritual teacher who is blatantly missing from wikipedia's coffers, this is only the first of many that I had planned to write about. I was busy getting ready to upload artilces about other spiritual teachers that are well known in their fields when I found myself caught up in this deletion war with a couple people (who do not represent ALL of wikipedia and have not played fair, deleting my other article about the Universal Church of Metaphysics and also all the conversations therewith before I can finish typing responses or proof of verification and notability) who have a particular greivance about the topics I would like to write about. So my work has been disrupted and interrupted unreasonably by individuals who my have a personal vendetta against these types of subjects and articles. I believe I have proof beyond the shadow of a doubt as to the notability of this subject and that it has been targeted unfairly by a couple people who are trying to take down anything and everything I write that is in my field of interest.
The subject is listed at various Guru Ratings pages and other Spiritual Teacher sites. Saro's Guru Rating Service where you will find this teacher listed, and 3 Fold Sun where you will also find this teacher listed, and the fact that this teacher is listed all over the internet on hundreds of sites except wikipedia. These sites are where I am finding these teachers who I feel should be written about in Wikipedia.
I do not know these teachers personally, despite what RHawthorn is insinuating, and I do not work for them. However, I have a special interest in spiritual teachers, books and teachings and I have checked them out, looked at their sites, and I do feel that I resonate with their teachings and even though my first article about one of them may have been a little too long and had too many adjectives, I feel that I should not be the reason one or two people have a vendetta in wikipedia against having Christine Breese or any of these teachers deleted from wikipedia just because my first article was a little too long and I am new to the politics of wikipedia.
Proof that the subject is a published author and writer: (If you allow me enough time instead of immediately deleting this article, I will post all these article links in the article about this teacher, and every link I have presented from here on out, if you like.)
Articles written by Christine Breese in magazines not affiliated with her or her organizations she runs:
1)
An Article published in Sentient Times a very large magazine on the west coast of California. This magazine is not produced by Christine Breese or any organization she is affiliated with.
2) Here is yet another article written by Christine Breese in a the
Open Exchange magazine that is very well known and sizable on the west coast of California and is not affiliated with any organization she works with.
3) Yet another magazine called
Kula Magazine where the subject has no authority or governance over the organization that runs this magazine.
4) here is another article in the Kula Magazine by this author all the way back to the
Hurricane Katrina fiasco.
5) There are many other articles submitted to many magazines and published that are simply not online, including Isis Scrolls, The Ray, Psychic Times, Dreams, and many others that are not online. Since I am a purveyor of these types of magazines, I have come across this person's name a lot and I have felt it is time to check this teacher out, and once I decided that I liked what this teacher had to say, I felt it important to let wikipedia readers know as well. There are many spiritual teachers I would like to introduce to wikipedia.
The subject's book has been reviewed at many places, but here are a couple examples, just scroll down and you will see it at http://www.smallbusinesses.com/reviews4.htm, here's another at http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R1C6Y3B4EEKSID and there are many more reviews about the book, but I believe that I have proven the point already with the notability of her book.
To see a listing of the book at Amazon.com, and also listed at Holistic Page, as well as Fields Books, Word Power Books, Gealina Online, Barnes And Noble Books, Powell's Books, ABD Sellers, Scribbly Gum Books, Sedona Journal Of Emergence, Insight Books, MSN Shopping, Alternatives Central, Spirit Wings, and this list just goes on and on and on for pages and pages and pages in Google Search for this book. It would just be ridiculous to list all the links on the internet to Christine Breese and her book. I do believe this proves that her and her book have notability.
The subject has been a guest on radio and TV shows, including Dave Alan's Nighthawk Series, and Baby Boomers Of Today or if you can't find the link there, go to Voice America and scroll down to the episode 3/4/08 - Baby Boomers Of Today Guest Christine Breese. If you would like to see a link to one of the TV shows she has been on in at a Station that is listed in your wikipedia at WTTV, go to http://youtube.com/watch?v=2h3ftUE2Vg0 if you would like to see a clip of the video.
Breese has also been to expos and presented many workshops, here is a link press release for one of them at http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200804/1208239619.html She has presented workshops at the New Life Expo see workshop listings at 4-4:50 p.m. Saturday Room 102D: “Use Your Heart Instead of Your Head!” with Christine Breese and Sunday at 2-2:50 p.m. Room 102F: “Manifesting Simplified & Surrender to Divine Will” with Christine Breese. She has also presented at Conscious Life Expo in Los Angelos and her lecture listing is at this url on their site. She is also scheduled to speak at all these expos again next year, and she is scheduled to speak at the upcoming New Life Expo in New York City. She has also facilitated retreats at both Mount Madonna Retreat Center, Breitenbush Hot Springs, listing for the retreat is at http://www.merchantcircle.com/blogs/University.of.Metaphyiscal.Sciences.800-521-6382/2007/12/October-22-2007-Breitenbush-Hot-Springs-Retreat-/54597 , Tree Of Life Tree Of Life in San Diego, and Harbin Hot Springs the listing is in many places, here is one at http://technorati.com/blogs/christinebreese.wordpress.com
The subject's videos and writings have been translated into Dutch at http://nl.truveo.com/tag/Breese and on youtube, and her videos have been linked to and viewed over 350,000 times through other people's websites who simply chose them by no encouragement from Breese or her organization, they did this of their own accord. If you search for the subject's name you will find massive amounts of links to her videos, her articles, her writings and her church and school. At youtube, this woman's videos have been watched 320,464 times exactly at www.youtube.com/MetaphysicalSiences
This teacher has thousands of students worldwide, and I think that I have proven beyond a doubt the notability through many verifiable outside sources and the fact that this person is a published author, writer, and substantial proof that she is a lecturer and teacher. If the likes of Eckhart Tolle, Gangaji, Adyashanti, Osho, and many other spiritual teachers who are also teaching in this tradition are listed in wikipedia, then this teacher should be listed as well. It is my goal to list several spiritual teachers in this particular tradition who are blatantly missing from wikipedia and should be here if wikipedia is to be an accurate source of information about teachers in this particular spiritual tradition who have earned a degree of recognition and notability in their field.
I have presented my case. I will dig deeper and present more facts and links if you like, but try to set your criticism aside for just one moment and look at the real facts of the situation and let go of opinions about these spiritual teachers just becuase you have never heard of him or her. Many other people have. Just because you haven't doesn't mean that they are not well known in their particular genre.
By the way, do I have to fight this hard every time I present an article to wikipedia? How do you guys ever get anything done on this site if every article posted takes this much work to fight for and just gets deleted as soon as it's written? I had a lot I wanted to contribute to wikipedia, but if it is this big a fight every time something gets posted, I don't see how wikipedia can move forward. I do appreciate you finally not deleting this article before I have had a chance to present my case, although you have deleted the one about the church over and over and over agine before I even had time to explain or have a chance to present my case, so this feels more fair and reasonable. This is more like it. I appreciate the time wikipedia has allowed for a presentation of why I respectfully disagree with the intentions for deletion by a couple of people who don't know anything about this particular person. I hope you can see more clearly why I feel that this person is notable, verifiable, and that my resources are plenty. I have been researching these teachers for a long time and I feel that I should be able to present my findings here. I only hope to make wikipedia more accurate in its reporting of these people who are so well recognized in thier field and yet have no listing here.
This was far more work than I planned on doing to present articles to wikipedia. I had hoped it would be a reasonable and fair process. While the other page I created does not feel treated reasonably and fairly, at least this one didn't get deleted before I could even finish typing my response to the users who wanted deletion. I hope I have educated the users as to the notability of this particular person I have found all over the internet and in spiritual magazines. Now please, don't just keep repeating that this person doesn't have any notability now that I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person does have notability. If you have contructive input to offer, I would like to hear it. ( SpiritBeing ( talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing) reply
(
SpiritBeing (
talk) 05:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)
reply
Strong opposition to deletion the above repetition of notability issues is erroneous, and there are plenty of third party websites, look at the article and the above, they are ignoring the ones that are third party because perhaps they are opposed to religions in this path? There is always opposition to this religion, and I believe they are using notability as an excuse. Look at the article, it has a long list of notability and a long list of third party sites that are verifiable, from press, to TV, to radio to listings. The woman's website ( I checked) has received 400,000 hits last year and the year before, and so far it has 200,000 hits, which means 1 million hits. I think that merits notability, besides all the third party sites provided which is within wikipedia guidelines and standards. At this point, people are only voicing opinions based on the fact that they either don't like this person, this religion, or this spiritual path, and using other issues as excuses, not proving their argument for non-notibility. I beleive notability has been proven beyond a doubt, but non-notability has not been proven, they just keep repeating it wihtout evidence.
Strong Keep (
SpiritBeing (
talk)SpiritBeing)
The result was Nomination withdrawn. See below. Non admin closing. --Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 23:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable magazine.
ukexpat (
talk) 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Redirect to Smash (album). The only keep comment that had any sensible argument in it stated, "Even though it fails WP:MUSIC...", which didn't help it's own argument. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 05:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Contested redirect. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 21:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced oneliner about a docking facility - not every place wher commercial boats can dock is notable - and this has no claim to notability. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Since the start of the AfD significant content has been added. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete chemicals are not inherently notable and this unsourced article purports to give nothing more than its chemical formula. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Redirecting to that section could cause confusion, since without references, the merged info would probably disappear quickly.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 04:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced oneliner about a drink with no indication why it's notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 08:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Complete copy/paste of the text from Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7), without following WP:REUSE. WP:CRYSTAL/ WP:NN: Page cannot be resonably re-written yet as no information has been released about season 8, except to say that is will air. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Leivick ( talk) 04:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced oneliner about tv episode, without anything indicating why this episode among the others is notable - falls far short of what is expected per WP:EPISODE. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 08:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced one-liner about a given name, with no indication that this name is significant; WP is not a baby-naming guide. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 08:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No official sources (Avex, news organizations, etc.) have even hinted at a cover album by Hamasaki. The Transmogrifier ( talk) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. Even her fans think it's a WP:HOAX. tomasz. 10:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is about a celebrity child, notability is not inherited. Author removed speedy tag. At best, should be a redirect to Jolie or Pitt. TN‑ X- Man 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
CD#A7 this is a speedy delete candidate. CSD was removed by the creator in contravention of wiki CSD guidelines. AfD is only required if a 3rd person contests CSD. -- triwbe ( talk) 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article is about a celebrity child and notability is not inherited. At best, this should be a redirect to Jolie or Pitt. TN‑ X- Man 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Leivick ( talk) 04:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Article provides false information, lacks notability, is unverifiable, original research, and is little more than a poorly expanded definition which belongs in a dictionary Jdrewitt ( talk) 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merged & redirected to U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co.#USFA Custom Shop. -- Stormie ( talk) 08:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Looks like a blatant advert to me. It is mentioned in the U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co. article; that would seem sufficient. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 18:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Leivick ( talk) 04:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to be an unnotable variation of XML. - IcĕwedgЁ ( ťalķ) 18:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect unsourced articles, keep sourced ones, per general agreement at the poll below. Mango juice talk 17:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTE; High School Conferences not notable as shown here. Material is mainly duplicate information anyway that is provided on a central list. Examples of articles that have been deleted from the central list already, Cincinnati Hills League (since re-added by User:RockMFR), Greater Miami Conference (since re-added by User:RockMFR), and Suburban League. Therefore these other 20+ articles that show no difference than those should be deleted as well. Here are some examples from other states that have had conferences deleted, Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference, Six Rivers Conference. These are the 27 articles proposed by User:UWMSports for deletion as stated in previous discussion. Other conferences will be evaluated individually. BurpTheBaby (Talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
PLEASE NOTE that User:RockMFR has brought back Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference without improvement since this AfD was created. Those have been added to the deletion list as they are articles brought back in their dead state by an admin who just had the power to do so.
Keep! I find these articles to be helpful in understanding the relationships between communities within a conference. And the history of certain conferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroys3rd ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC) — Leroys3rd ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep! As per Hobit. Radioinfoguy ( talk) 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
PLEASE NOTE that User:RockMFR has brought back Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference since this AfD was created. Those have been added to the deletion list. -- BurpTheBaby (Talk) 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, AfD is not a vote, but with this discussion ranging far and wide as the last one did, let's employ the same methods.
Here is my compromise suggestion: Keep articles with sources ( Ohio Cardinal Conference and Green Meadows Conference - are there any others I'm unaware of?). Delete unsourced articles, with no prejudice for recreation when they are sourced and include more than a list of squads. Move the two newly created articles Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference to my userspace so I can put them with the other draft articles to be improved upon.
I know this isn't my ideal solution, or probably anyone else's, but it should solve the biggest problem that people have with the articles here. Please just sign underneath.
SUPPORT
AGAINST
The above is not a vote
I think its time for this AfD to be close and the compromise based on the % of people willing to accept it to be put into effect by the closing admin. It's been a couple days since anyone has commented, so lets end this. -- GoHuskies9904 ( talk) 18:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy userfy and tell user to publish elsewhere. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a manual/help page for a game. Not encylopedic content. Rob Banzai ( talk) 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 08:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blatant crystal ballery and quite clearly fails WP:NFF. As reported in this article in Variety, the rights to the film have been sold, and that's pretty much it. PC78 ( talk) 18:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Stormie ( talk) 08:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album by Spider Loc. This album doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC guidelines. No independent coverage etc. Reverend X ( talk) 17:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect -- Leivick ( talk) 04:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mythological creature that fails WP:V. The article is unsourced since its inception in 2003. No on-topic search results, except one Google Books search result that seems to indicate that an angel of that name is mentioned (by name only) in the Book of Enoch. That one mention doesn't support an article dedicated to this subject. Sandstein 17:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Fallen Angel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeter'el and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neqa'el - Nabla ( talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mythological creature that fails WP:V. The article is unsourced since its inception in 2005. It's also entirely written in an in-universe style, to borrow a phrase frequently used in fiction AfDs. No on-topic search results, except one Google Books search result that seems to indicate that an angel of that name is mentioned (by name only) in the Book of Enoch. That one mention doesn't support an article dedicated to this subject. Sandstein 17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Fallen Angel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuma'el and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neqa'el - Nabla ( talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mythological creature that fails WP:V. The article is unsourced since its inception in 2003 (!). No on-topic search results, except one Google Books search result that seems to indicate that an angel of that name is mentioned (by name only) in the Book of Enoch. That one mention doesn't support an article dedicated to this subject. Sandstein 17:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, nothing apparent to establish notability of this mixtape, so going with WP:MUSIC standards. -- Stormie ( talk) 08:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. Mixtapes are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Fallen Angel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuma'el and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeter'el - Nabla ( talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mythological creature that fails WP:V; the article is unsourced since December 2006. I couldn't find any on-topic Google, Google Scholar or Google Book hits. The (few) search results that are returned appear to deal with some other creature or concept from Jewish tradition. Sandstein 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mango juice talk 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
An utterly nonnotable catch phrase. Only 45 unique google hits for "color of the bikeshed" plus 29 unique google hits for "coloUr of the bikeshed". The text is one big original research plus some tentative refs to hacker lore sources. `' Míkka >t 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
At this point, the preponderance of responses suggest keeping an improved/recasted article. To summarize:
Proposed actions: a) Keep the article. b) Refocus and retitle it to address the concept rather than the phrase. c) Integrate it better with other Parkinson material. d) Clean up the sources. [And with luck e) Never need to discuss this again.] Kindly add any dissenting comments below, with explanation, please – e.g. explaining why you feel that the quoted sources are inadequate. :) Spinality ( talk) 19:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I would be happy to merge & redirect the article to one on the Missouri House of Reps election, but there does not seem to be one. If I've missed it, point it out to me, I'd be happy to undelete, merge & redirect. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:CRYSTAL, may merit deletion per WP:RECENTISM; he doesn't appear to be particularly notable apart from election coverage. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 16:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), the nomination was withdrawn. Ruslik ( talk) 06:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Nomination withdrawn - see the end of this discussion.
This is a misleading article about conference management software. I've tried to stubify it but various editors insist on reinstating it, so a proper debate is needed.
The article fails
WP:VER and
WP:NOTABILITY for the following reasons:
Essentially, it's spam. If it wasn't for the fact that it's freeware it would have been deleted long ago
andy (
talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep per consensus Keeper ǀ 76 22:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school. Prod was removed and a merge was suggested, but the material here is largely trivial and unreferenced so a merge doesn't make much sense as the material isn't viable even in another host article. Mikeblas ( talk) 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Anheuser-Busch InBev does not exist, as the merger is not yet approved. Thus, this is an unnecessary crystal ball article that simply repeats content from existing articles. The article should be recreated later if/when the new company actually exists. Superm401 - Talk 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted as there is one major author who blanked the page ( WP:CSD#G7). Editor advised to use WP:CSD in future. - Jéské ( v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 06:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Market requirement ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Author asking for speedy delete or AFD. Copyright issues. Spinacia ( talk) 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. None of the suggestions for keeping this article have addressed the problem of notability. Sher eth 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Think About Life; Keep (no consensus) on Miracle Fortress. Waggers ( talk) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
These two bands do not pass any category for WP:MUSIC. The only reference for Think About Life is an independent vegan blogger who interviewed the band and attended one show in Brooklyn. The only reference for Miracle Fortress is their myspace page...and I'm not even going to get started on that one. -- Адам12901 T/ C 15:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete. Glass Cobra 19:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No content, unknown band. This is not Myspace:Bands... imho at least. Carbonrodney ( talk) 14:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Lenticel ( talk) 00:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources, looks like a hoax. Sceptre ( talk) 14:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Delete arguments appear to be largely unfounded or have been addressed. Mango juice talk 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced list which add no meaning to any articles or Wikipedia Bidgee ( talk) 14:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Lets do a Google search of The Sydney Morning Herald to see how the newspaper uses these terms: Eastern Suburbs, Northern Beaches, Lower North Shore, Upper North Shore, Inner West. Is that proof enough for everyone? -- Lester 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 09:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game mod. Only 13 Google hits for "Primal Evil" + "Half-Life" [20], a few of them not pertaining to this subject. Speedy removed on the somewhat unusual grounds of "not a biography." Fails WP:V, WP:N, and not a game guide. RGTraynor 14:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, it's currently non-notable, but I'm sure it's going to be BIG! I don't know if you are a gamer, but if you are, then imagine playing God of War on the computer screen. There are currently only two concept-arts, but soon a trailer will be released. Please, give this mod's page in Wiki a chance!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hristian ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete -- Leivick ( talk) 04:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
In one word: Notability. I could find nothing that would justify an article. user: Everyme 13:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Reptilian humanoid#In fiction. Consensus is difficult to assess because during the AfD, the article has been cut down from a huge unsourced laundry list of appearances in fiction to two paragraphs. Taking into account that there's at least consensus that this should not be an article of its own, the sensible thing to do is to merge the remaining two paragraphs into the main article. (The opinion of the banned user taking part in this discussion was discounted.) Sandstein 17:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Since its previous AfD one year ago, only two in-line external links to primary sources and no reliable, secondary sources have been added. Criteria for inclusion seems based on WP:OR -- where is the publication that identifies these entries as "reptilian humanoids"? Not even citations to dialog to justify entries' inclusion here. -- EEMIV ( talk) 13:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
merge with reptilian humanoids. No need for a separate article. Lol at Will's comment.:) Sticky Parkin 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep -- Stormie ( talk) 09:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
looks more like an ad than an article. a Google searched yielded pretty much the whole article as a result item. flydubai has no website of its own...
i dunno... but i guess you can vote to keep if you think its worthwhile. Carbonrodney ( talk) 13:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 09:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a band with extremely questionable notability. A quick g-search shows no independent reliable sources. The only claim to notability is that they have released two albums, but these have been independent releases as they aren't signed by a record label. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 09:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails both WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE; being well familiar with the series, each "case" is basically a level within the game. While very high level overview of each case is useful in context of each game, separate breakout and description of each case is both adding too much plot (we've struck out long case summaries before within the articles), and basically fails WikiProject Video Games's "not a game guide". Also, this now potentially leaves triplication of content on the individual games' pages, the list of AA characters page, and this page. Notability may also be an issue but not the main one: In the games themselves, no case alone is really notable (save perhaps the last one of the first game, only because it was specially recreated for the DS version - however, that's about the game, not the case, really); the total sum of all cases are not notable either, though I will say that one could consider this a spinout of the series article. A possible option is merging the specific cases back to their game articles, though again, these articles tend to edge on an overall plot summary and then one-two sentence descriptions of each case, not the level of detail here (and if you start going into more detail for some of the cases, it's impossible to stop). MASEM 13:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 09:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable apparently self-promoting New Zealand social climber. The article itself is heavy with peacock terms, but in trying to track down whether this youngster is genuinely notable, the NZ Google turns up only 3000 hits ... and looking over them, almost all of them refer to other Sam Sargents. His purportedly more famous father has a good bit many fewer hits, and "Sam Sargent" + "It-Boy" has just this article. It doesn't seem to be a hoax, but the few webpage sources listed in the article mention the subject only in passing. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V RGTraynor 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 09:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Half the single-line article is a definition, as well. Was PRODed, but has been deleted through PROD once before. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 13:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1 among others. — Wknight94 ( talk) 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. Appears to massively fail WP:WEB and completely lacks sources. Been deleted once through WP:PROD [23], so bringing to AfD. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 13:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.
The headcount is roughly evenly divided. The "keep" proponents argue that the list is adequately sourced and organised. The "delete" side counters that the list as a whole is original research by synthesis because of the (perceived) lack of an accepted definition of pederasty. Furthermore, in the opinion of the proponents of deletion, assigning the label "pederasty" to all sorts of often poorly documented relationships is also original research.
Although I find the "delete" argument to be more persuasive prima facie, there's really no objective basis for me to say that the "keep" side is wrong with their assertions to the contrary. For that, I'd have to examine every individual item and its source, which is obviously infeasible in this context. In short, I can't determine whose arguments are stronger, and so we've got no consensus.
Obviously, WP:BLP must be strictly observed in this article – some of the children involved, at least, might still be alive. Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. Sandstein 18:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This article began its life as a list, but has over time become the storinghouse for any uncited claim of any person in history whom any editor wants to claim was involved in pederasty. In a number of cases (e.g. Leonardo DaVinci and Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein), material appears in this omnibus which has been roundly rejected from the main article, thus turning this list into a de-facto POV content fork. Lastly, the decision for this to be a list, rather than a category (which might be defensible) smacks of original research: the desire to synthesize and publish original commentary on Wikipedia, which violates WP:NOR.
This article was nominated for deletion a couple of years ago, but the discussion surrounding it was very lightweight, on both sides of the issue. I'm hoping this nomination will get a bit more serious attention and thorough discussion. Nandesuka ( talk) 12:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
( talk) 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Haiduc's reasons for keeping this article mirror my own. Welland R ( talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I have to agree the fuzzy and over lax definition of pederasty needs to be fixed. What are the age cut offs? I don't think being with someone 18 or over should count at all and if the two guys are just separated by a couple years then it shouldn't count either. Nocturnalsleeper ( talk) 03:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Of course, a specific example of a problem in an article doesn't speak to deletion at all. But I think this one does get across the general problem of subjective judgment inherent to Haiduc's "pederastic" label and its application to specific cases.
The article's lede defines pederasty as occurring "between adult men and adolescent boys". Well, down in the Eighteenth century section we encounter two couples, both from Europe, occurring sixty years apart. The broad social context -- in terms of how the passage into adulthood would be understood -- is the same.
Now, were I the one arbitrarily selecting people to be listed in this article, I should exclude both these couples. In my opinion, zero out of the four individuals is "adolescent" - one pair consisted of two adults, the other of an adult and a small child.
But it doesn't really matter how my judgment differs from Haiduc's here, what matters is that the couples can't be included on or excluded from the list without its subjective application. Sources are given for both these stories - but those sources speak to the facts of history, not to the categorization of a late teenager as an adult "pederast" in one case and as the non-adult partner of a "pederast" in the other. To say nothing of the weird way that the apparently non-sexual relationship with the 10-year-old is given an erotic cast by references to the boys future "pursuit" of "boys" -- whether adolescent or pre-, the article doesn't say.
Another note -- most striking about the inclusion of a 10-year-old is that it tends to work against the idea that "pederasty" ought to be considered as something distinct from "pedophilia" -- a distinction that is often and fiercely defended on Wikipedia in discussions of these articles.
I do not think that pederasty is the same thing as pedophilia. I don't think it's anything; I think it is a phantom. It's a category that cannot be objectively defined even for one culture, much less when generalized to every culture. Its use in the culture outside of Wikipedia -- like that of "sodomy" or "natural" or "masculine" -- may be of encyclopedic interest as a subject, but its use as a judgment by Wikipedia editors will always be strongly POV.
Dybryd ( talk) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Conested PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC. Only references provided are myspace and youtube. role player 11:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), notabily established. Ruslik ( talk) 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable personal project. The article establishes no notability apart from a single page at About.com; this does not constitute "significant coverage" as required by the WP:N guidelines. Megata Sanshiro ( talk) 11:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected to Buttocks. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
vandalism
User:RRaunak 11:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
advertise
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was REDIRECT. This was a tough one and I will explain my rationale as fully as I can. If AfD were a simple vote, this would be Kept and I'd have had no aggravation deciding it, but it isn't. The subject of the article is "MI-5 Persecution". We are establishing the notability of this topic, not an opera or an individual who may have popularised the term. As such, it's an internet meme. These come along frequently and some are deemed notable, some are not. The article itself presents no evidence of notability of this term as a meme. Looking through the AfD contributions below, Michael Bednarek argues for the notability of the opera, not this meme. MMetro argues that deleting this article will create issues in another, but I'm unconvinced that this is valid argument for keeping something. I'm not sure a redirect to List of Usenet personalities is justified. Drutt says he's highly notable, yet we have no evidence of the masses of world correspondents who write on Internet issues making it so. Besides, we're not deciding the notability of the individual - that's already been decided. It was Chris, right at the end, who hit the nail on the head. This is a minor meme term, of dubious notability, but it can usefully point to The Corley Conspiracy, which seems to be able to hold its head up as notable. Dweller ( talk) 09:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Corley. Same subject, same issues. Yes, I was the creator of the Corley article. H2G2 have also deleted this. Corley is either insane (so we should not mock him) or some kind of Turing test experiment. Nobody knows which. Nobody cares any more. Guy ( Help!) 11:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted a1, insufficient context. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
A tomfoolery,Vandalism
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Frank | talk 11:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Danm nonsense
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete ( criteria A1) -- Allen3 talk 11:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
total vandalism
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Allen3 per CSD G10 as an attack page. WilliamH ( talk) 11:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
what do you know about this
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was close and relist separately without prejudice as to the final outcome. I do not see any value to be gained in leaving this blanket discussion open any longer, given that there is reasonably broad consensus already that the articles have different levels of notability and sources and should be considered separately. Thatcher 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The liberal dilemma - how can we show tolerance towards those who are intolerant? Let's respect each other's views and the religious practices of others. It is a published fact that one of the key commitments/samaya of the Shugden practice is to abandon the texts and traditions of the Nyingma. The stance of asking 'respect of the religious practices of others' sounds particularly hollow. I believe this issue cannot be resolved in the near future.
We already know that Jimmy Wales believes that two warring factions can never, ever, hammer out an article that is NPOV. He has said (regarding the NKT article, but it could just as well apply here) [1]In light of the strong internal censorship of ideas and thoughts, along with almost medieval practices of shunning within the NKT organisation itself, my guess is that it would be preferable for the pro-NKT and pro-Shugden lobby to have nothing at all, rather than to have articles that do not subscribe to their views. In my experience, as an editor of Wikipedia for over four years, the entire NKT-related articles - all the way through from Dorje Shugden Dorje Shugden controversy and beyond have been subject to massive edit wars and biased views. External publications and references often do not help here, as there are no unbiased opinions available. Why not? A primary issue here is whether or not DS is a Buddha. Of course, the majority of the planet, if it mattered (which under WP guidelines it doesn't) would say 'no'. The majority of primary literature, outside of a very few (if somewhat influential) authors says 'no', but that isn't relevant, because the yay-sayers are vocal, numerous, and have a vast amount of karma (and samaya) risked on that one key fact. WP is not designed to be a soapbox for views - and yet again and again, we find that it is being used for just that purpose. The NKT-focussed pages have caused considerable upset and the vocal minority (who persistently use temporary accounts, unregistered accounts, and sock puppets to mask their identities) have managed to drive off other editors, some of them being pushed into retirement. Not only that, the same minority has made no significant contribution to Wikipedia, in that their sole focus are these controversial, NKT-focussed articles. Religious advocacy pieces have no place on Wikipedia. At the moment, my view is that the entire set of pages are costing legitimate editors and contributers to Wikipedia more time and energy than they do bring value to it. In light of this, I am beginning to be convinced that the sole recourse is to AfD Dorje Shugden/ Dorje Shugden Controversy and any other related pages, with a five year moratorium before they can be resurrected. As I understand it, such an action would be favourable in GKG's eyes - he has already ordered that the discussion groups be closed off elsewhere - he asks his students to get on with practice, rather than waste time chit-chatting on the Internet in a manner which has little or no value. Je Rinpoche (Lama Tsongkhapa - the root lama of the Gelugpa, and the appointed root lama of the NKT) says in the Three Principles of the PathThe philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring parties is one that I have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see that it absolutely does not work. I would prefer to have no article on New Kadampa Tradition than to have one which is a constant battleground for partisans, taking up huge amounts of times of good editors, legal people, and me. What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground.
so I am pretty sure that he also would see the time and effort spent on these articles as wasteful.Resort to solitute and generate the power of effort. Accomplish quickly your final aim, my child
If we don't do this, what other options are left? What is needed is a completely unbiased admin with years of experience, tolerance of a saint, and weeks of time on her hands to assist and guide in the training of editors and balancing of articles. The current contributors and editors are far too involved in the issues at hand. The article list is long. Time is precious. Here is the article list that I know of: Dorje Shugden Dorje Shugden controversy Trode Khangsar Western Shugden Society.
The WP community cannot expect the current group of interested individuals to deliver short, sharp, purely-factual articles with individuals proposing article mergers and coming to the noticeboards as often as required. Why NOT? because it has already happened repeatedly for more than four years. Nothing changed. Sometimes the pro-NKT got their way, sometimes the anti-NKT got their way. The process needs outsiders to sit on the articles for quite some time. Or they need deletion with moratorium.
I suggest this with real, legitimate misgivings. The NKT has completely excised the existence of individuals like Thubten Gyatso (NKT) from their records and publications - even though he contributed a huge amount to their movement over many years, and gave initiations to many students. Likewise, they have worked particularly hard to hide some of the less palatable aspects of their movement, and their activities towards the Tibetan Community have been divisive; they have then projected their own faults onto the Dalai Lama. The facts (as seen by the outside world) are not in accordance with the interests of the NKT. But they are intelligent, dedicated, computer-literate and have plenty of time on their hands. Deleting these articles actually helps to reduce the opportunity to air the issues that are well-known and published about the NKT and Dorje Shugden. A possible weakness of WP is that it gives too much opportunity to the minor communities to self-justify their position, and often the sole opponents are jaded, or destroyed ex-members (see eg User:kt66. I consider the NKT-related articles are like a brother to the Scientology-related articles, though they have received less attention from on high. ( 20040302 ( talk) 11:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable webcontent, a1 no context, g3 hoax. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
hoax not in google
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete g2, test page. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
vandalism
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
nonsense article
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
advert /Orkut community eh...Who goes to orkut
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Seemingly non-notable band. No sources, tho talk page message claims press mentions; Google is less certain (plus i have to snigger a little at the idea of an Indiana local newspaper explaining the 'hilarious' story behind the band name). Prod removed by IP. tomasz. 10:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was G12 as copyvio by PeaceNT , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Chirps• Clams• Chowder) 13:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and unsourced, 559 google hits for "Bok Fu Do" -wikipedia drops to 134 if you navigate to later pages. Make big claims ( name dropping)with not even a primary source or site to start from, full clean up would remove ~50% of the article. Nate1481( t/ c) 10:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ATHLETE - baseball player who has not competed professionally. Majorclanger ( talk) 10:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT. Planewalker Dave ( talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Almost a year ago it was proposed that this article should be merged and deleted and yet nothing happened. On July 8th I proposed this article be deleted using the proposed deletion tag as it is clearly breaking the WP:FUTFILMS policy. We have no evidence that this film is still in development, let alone "confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography". On the 12th an anonymous IP address user removed the deletion proposal tag and provided no reason.
Almost all important and reliable information in this article is at the end of the Luke Cage article, so no merging really take place. I really think this article should be deleted so in the interests of fairness and obeying the Wikipedia deletion policy I'm proposing it for deletion in this manner. Planewalker Dave ( talk) 10:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, CSD A7 (non-notable bio). -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 10:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
nonsense
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete, CSD G1 (nonsense). tomasz. 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
a known tomfoolery
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. I will now boldly implement a solution that seems good to me; this is independent from my role as closer. Mango juice talk 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
no reference
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 09:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
vandalism
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete per consensus. Keeper ǀ 76 22:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
nonsense
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete, vandalism. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 09:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
bad bords
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy Delete, WP:CSD#A1. Frank | talk 11:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
nonsense
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 08:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete, nonsense. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 08:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Bad words
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 08:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. John254 23:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable novel that fails the five notability criteria in WP:BK. The series itself isn't even notable enough to have an article and the author is little more than a stub. A quick Google search found not a single reliable source that wasn't a store site, official site, or personal, self-published site for this book. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 08:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted G4 by Alexf. Non-admin closure. - FrankTobia ( talk) 23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This song is only a leaked demo intended for the new album of Beyonce Knowles. -- Efe ( talk) 08:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, but was merged by apparent consensus. Sandstein 17:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
dicdef, whose definition is better met at primate. UtherSRG (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all delete votes. -- JForget 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wiki. There is a link to it from the Ratchet & Clank article. That is sufficient. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 08:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BK. A search on Google Books and the Google News archive yielded no positive result. The book itself may be a great source about Star Wars, but it doesn't merit an article about itself. user: Everyme 08:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person, only 29 results on Google. Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW(non-admin closure) A very notable piece of malware. - IcĕwedgЁ ( ťalķ) 08:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Spyware. Does Wikipedia need an article on every piece of shit spyware out there? There are millions of them. --Index
The result was delete -- Leivick ( talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Can not find a single mention of this newsletter anywhere. - IcĕwedgЁ ( ťalķ) 07:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as hoax. Sandstein 17:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Article reads like an ad. No references at all (the two ref tags lead to no info about the organisation). I put a multiple issues tag on the article in April, since then no improvement. Not only does it seem that this don't pass notabilit criteria, a google search gives no indication to the existance of the organisation. Its website [30] does not contain any contact address or phone numbers, no records of any activity of the organisation. It might thus be a hoax altogether or a one-man internet stunt. Soman ( talk) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Leivick ( talk) 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:Cricket has developed criteria to indicate what WP:Athlete means in the context of cricket at WP:CRIN. For a modern-era player they should have played in a first-class, List A or official Twenty20 match. Whilst this player has played for a national side, he has not played any of those forms of cricket, hence fails the notability criteria as agreed by consensus at WP:Cricket and therefore fails WP:Athlete. Andrew nixon ( talk) 07:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per unanimous vote -- JForget 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I've brought this here because it has been WP:PRODded and de-prodded several times in the past few weeks. I couldn't find any sources to demonstrate notability. Time for it to be discussed here. Michig ( talk) 05:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Notability is established by the mentioned sources. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 17:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Of marginal notability. No assertions of notability is given. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 04:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 10:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not asserted on this contested prod. Might be speedy eligible. Non-notable person except if he wins the election. See WP:FUTURE for the policy on predicting the future. Royal broil 04:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was obvious delete Shii (tock) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
More neologism shenanigans. This one seems limited to a single college campus. Ecoleetage ( talk) 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply
unreferenced food stub whose notability cannot be verified. Tavix ( talk) 03:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - fails WP:MUSIC notability requirements. Tan ǀ 39 13:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This artist fails WP:MUSIC. There was an earlier dispute regarding whether this meets CSD A7, but nonetheless it still fails the general biographical and verification policies. JBsupreme ( talk) 03:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I believe this is a violation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All this is is a mnemonic device to remember a set of conjunctions. I don't see any encyclopedic value here. Powers T 02:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N, couldn't find any reliable sources on this at all. Wizardman 02:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Leivick ( talk) 01:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Fails
WP:MOVIE.
SchuminWeb (
Talk) 02:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
*Looks notable:
reply
The result was delete. -- Leivick ( talk) 01:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Only link site is the subject's web page. No independent reliable sources to establish subject's individual notability. Artene50 ( talk) 02:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Close based more on strength of arguments, than numbers. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Per precedent, lists of B-sides, unreleased songs, etc. are almost always trivial and therefore unnecessary. This has been tagged for refs since a year ago with no improvement.
Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 01:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 10:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mason webb is a non-notable person. Tagged with the general notability tag since January. Tavix ( talk) 01:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 05:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for things made up in a day. Its a shame there is not an applicable speedy that could deal with this article. Creator contested prod. - IcĕwedgЁ ( ťalķ) 01:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This article would questionably stand up to a Speedy Delete A7 (for failing to state why the band is important) and a prod (for notability) was contested. The article only stands up to band notability guidelines for having two albums released on Candlelight records and nothing more. The article does not cite any references despite being tagged as such since March 2008. The content of the article serves primarily to provide information regarding the side projects of non-notable band members. Based on these reasons (primarily the lack of any citations), it is easy to come to the conclusion that this article exists in Wikipedia primarily for vanity. — X S G 01:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted; content previously transwikied to Wikia/merged into other articles at a misplaced title.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 01:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable character, I tried to find him in the main Naruto and Naruto character articles to see if there was a place to redirect this, but I couldn't find anyplace on Wikipedia to point it, there is a soft redirect at Meizu (Naruto) to a naruto wiki. LegoTech·( t)·( c) 01:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 10:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mixtapes fail WP:MUSIC LegoTech·( t)·( c) 00:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod on the basis that more than one rape ! However per WP:ONEEVENT which is policy. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. We have an article on the event for which this person is notable - ie Sydney gang rapes and he is listed in that article. I think listing there is sufficient with a paragraph or so of mention and this separate article is unwarranted. More than one rape may have been involved but I think for the purpose of scope the gang rapes in Sydney as covered by the article are one event. Matilda talk 00:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they similarly fall within WP:ONEEVENT for the same series of attacks already covered by an article on that event:
The following articles have not had proposed deletion contested but are listed here in case that is the case so that they are part of the same discussion:
-- Matilda talk 00:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nominator withdrawal [37]. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy ( talk) 02:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Unverified and not-notable. Article doesn't make any attempt to verify that this place actually exists. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 00:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Ty 01:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
There is a clear conflict of interest happening here. The article was speedy deleted and then recreated. The original editor removed the speedy delete tag and was warned. He then switched to an anonymous IP address to remove the tag. I thought it was best to bring it to AfD. This is unsourced and the subject is of limited notability. His claims to notability are unreferenced. Although I'm loath to bring in vanity, this is clearly a self-promotional article by a subject of questionable notability freshacconci speaktome 00:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. I note a number of Keep opinions that contradict policy / deletion protcol - Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is not a policy page, but contains much useful advice. We do have some precedent that major releases announced by movie studios or, for that matter, record labels, can be regarded as de facto and overcoming WP:CRYSTAL, but this article presents no RS recording such an announcement. Anyone finding RS (not a single mention on Amazon) for the launch can let me know and I'll recreate the article for them to add the RS to, and I'll !vote Keep if there's a subsequent second AfD. Dweller ( talk) 10:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No notability or significant coverage established, or likely to be (without breaching WP:CRYSTAL territory, anyway). PROD was rejected on claim that "All films, whether theatrical or otherwise, have wikipedia articles." The very existence of inclusion criteria for films, as well as more obvious factors, rather strongly dispute this assertion. Vianello ( talk) 00:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete until meaningful content exists. "It will take place on Halloween and appears to be loosely based of the classic A Pup Named Scooby-Doo episode Ghost Who's Coming To Dinnner. The film will most likely be dedicated to Joseph Barbera, who died during production of the previous film, Chill Out, Scooby-Doo! " - People are seriously voting to keep this? No meaningful content could possibly exist right now. JohnnyMrNinja 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The article does establish notability as reliable sources have been found. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy ( talk) 02:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web site, does not pass WP:WEB requirements. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
It already has a listing on the German side of Wikipedia, which does provide references as to its notability. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidedia Is there a reason for a German-languange site to be listed seperately on the English-language side of wikipedia? Khanaris ( talk) 00:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Nothing. Nom did not complete AfD and has instead merged/redirected articles. Non-admin close. -- Ned Scott 22:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
These articles are "In-Universe" articles (see WP:WAF) about non-notable fictional characters on the show Coronation Street. All of these articles have been shown less than a year but haven't had the time yet to become notable per WP:FICT on per WP:SOAPS.
The full list of characters I'm nominating:
The result ended in all being redirected to List of characters from Coronation Street
The result was Keep. Sources established by Oakshade. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 04:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Nomination made on behalf of
Opinoso (
talk ·
contribs) per comment on my talk page. Prod rationale was "This article is a propaganda of a Nazi group from Southern Brazil. Actually, "Riograndense Republic" NEVER existed, since they NEVER separeted from Brazil; it was a failed movement. Nazi people are using the War of the Farrapos as a way to instigate violence and claiming an unreal "separatist" movement in Southern Brazil, which actually does not exist. The sentence posted in this article "primary motivation for the proposal is that the population of these three states, unlike the population of the other states of Brazil, is almost entirely Caucasian" has an obvious Nazi influence. THIS ARTICLE MUST BE DELETED". For my part, Neutral. Blanchardb-
Me•
MyEars•
MyMouth-timed 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
for the original revolt: Flag of the Riograndense Republic: Background on the Farrophilha revolution: Conflict between the Imperial Brazilian Regency and the cattle ranchers of the South: This reference establishes notability for the modern secessionist movement: Christian Science Monitor February 9, 1993—“Some Southern Brazilians Want Out": There is no reason to delete this article. It has notability, it is an important part of Brazilian history, there is a modern secessionist movement and the article is properly referenced. Keraunos ( talk) 06:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
1) "Riograndenser Republic" NEVER existed because it was never separed from Brazil.
2) The article War of the Farrapos already talks about this movement in Southern Brazil.
3) War of the Farrapos has NOTHING TO DO with this minor movement existing nowadays with some members in Southern Brazil. War of the Farrapos was because of economic problems in Southern Brazil, so they rebelled against the Empire.
4)Most of the soldiers in the War were poor peasants and former BLACK SLAVES. So, it's not possible to make a connection between the "Riograndenser Republic" and this nowadays Nazi movement that is trying to "preserve the German or Northern Italian heritage in Southern Brazil".
"Riograndenser Republic" is already included in the article War of the Farrapos. This "new" "movement" in Southern Brazil has nothing to do with the 19th century Riograndenser Republic and, moreover, does not have and notority outside of the "Internet world". Nobody in Brazil has never heard about this "movement". I didn't, until I find this pathetic propaganda on the Internet. Opinoso ( talk) 02:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
It was failed movements. They did not have time to establish a new country, because soon they agreed to make a peace contract with Brazil. The "Riograndenser Republic" was NOT recognized as a new country by NOBODY. It was just a failed utopia.
Many other movements took place in Brazil at that time, and they also tried to separated their regions from the Empire of Brazil. Read the article Cabanagem; they tried to separate the Northern state of Pará from Brazil in the same period they tried to separate Rio Grande do Sul. These movements have nothing to do with these crazy Nazi on the Internet. It was because of economic stuff, not race at all. The "Riograndenser Republic" NEVER existed. The same way the "Republic of Cabanagem" NEVER existed too. Both
So, to affirm that this Republic existed is a lie. And also, it's not possible to make a connection with this 200 year ago movement in Southern Brazil with the "new" nazi people in the Internet. The Republic was a failed utopia. The article War of the Farrapos already talks about it. Opinoso ( talk) 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I study Law, and as far as I know, for a country (State) exist, it must have: 1) a delimited territory, 2) a population 3)a Power
Riograndenser Republic did not have any of these itens. So, it was not a country, but a failed separatist movement. If you look any book or something similar from that period, you won't find anything like "the United States is the greatest commercial partner of Riograndenser Republic, the new country of South America". You won't find it, because it was not even recognized as a new country by nobody. Opinoso ( talk) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Air mattress. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable topic, badly written, no references -- RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 04:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete already covered at Cape Cod (disambiguation), with no real sources for either, but it certainly exists in multiple recipes with or without lime juice/sugar - but not much else can be said about it, lack of potential to be much more than a one liner better handled on the dab page. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This guy doesn't seem notable to me. According to the article he is only known as the father of Glaucus, which doesn't make him notable in his own right. Tavix ( talk) 21:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 05:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Author, meditation teacher and lecturer written up by someone with an obvious COI. Little evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 21:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
delete no notability. Moontowandi ( talk) 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
( SpiritBeing ( talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing) Hello, Actually, the subject is notable with published and verifiable book on amazon.com that has been out since 1997. If wikipedia aims that the subject have verifiable notability concerning books, there's the proof for that. As for the subject's accomplishments and notability, also, see all the pages on Google which point to the subject's name. 148,000 links are found on the subject's name. RHaworth believes that there is no notability, but there is plenty and it is enough to make the article a keeper, as you will see below. Becuase RHaworth has never heard of this person, it is simply an opinion that there is no notability, not fact. The subject actually is well known in her particular venue, which you will also see below. The subject has been in the press, written many articles that have been published in spiritual magazines and newsletters, established large organizations serving thousands of people and is well known in her field. reply
I'm not sure what COI is, but if it is about me as the writer of the article feeling moved to write about a spiritual teacher who is blatantly missing from wikipedia's coffers, this is only the first of many that I had planned to write about. I was busy getting ready to upload artilces about other spiritual teachers that are well known in their fields when I found myself caught up in this deletion war with a couple people (who do not represent ALL of wikipedia and have not played fair, deleting my other article about the Universal Church of Metaphysics and also all the conversations therewith before I can finish typing responses or proof of verification and notability) who have a particular greivance about the topics I would like to write about. So my work has been disrupted and interrupted unreasonably by individuals who my have a personal vendetta against these types of subjects and articles. I believe I have proof beyond the shadow of a doubt as to the notability of this subject and that it has been targeted unfairly by a couple people who are trying to take down anything and everything I write that is in my field of interest.
The subject is listed at various Guru Ratings pages and other Spiritual Teacher sites. Saro's Guru Rating Service where you will find this teacher listed, and 3 Fold Sun where you will also find this teacher listed, and the fact that this teacher is listed all over the internet on hundreds of sites except wikipedia. These sites are where I am finding these teachers who I feel should be written about in Wikipedia.
I do not know these teachers personally, despite what RHawthorn is insinuating, and I do not work for them. However, I have a special interest in spiritual teachers, books and teachings and I have checked them out, looked at their sites, and I do feel that I resonate with their teachings and even though my first article about one of them may have been a little too long and had too many adjectives, I feel that I should not be the reason one or two people have a vendetta in wikipedia against having Christine Breese or any of these teachers deleted from wikipedia just because my first article was a little too long and I am new to the politics of wikipedia.
Proof that the subject is a published author and writer: (If you allow me enough time instead of immediately deleting this article, I will post all these article links in the article about this teacher, and every link I have presented from here on out, if you like.)
Articles written by Christine Breese in magazines not affiliated with her or her organizations she runs:
1)
An Article published in Sentient Times a very large magazine on the west coast of California. This magazine is not produced by Christine Breese or any organization she is affiliated with.
2) Here is yet another article written by Christine Breese in a the
Open Exchange magazine that is very well known and sizable on the west coast of California and is not affiliated with any organization she works with.
3) Yet another magazine called
Kula Magazine where the subject has no authority or governance over the organization that runs this magazine.
4) here is another article in the Kula Magazine by this author all the way back to the
Hurricane Katrina fiasco.
5) There are many other articles submitted to many magazines and published that are simply not online, including Isis Scrolls, The Ray, Psychic Times, Dreams, and many others that are not online. Since I am a purveyor of these types of magazines, I have come across this person's name a lot and I have felt it is time to check this teacher out, and once I decided that I liked what this teacher had to say, I felt it important to let wikipedia readers know as well. There are many spiritual teachers I would like to introduce to wikipedia.
The subject's book has been reviewed at many places, but here are a couple examples, just scroll down and you will see it at http://www.smallbusinesses.com/reviews4.htm, here's another at http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R1C6Y3B4EEKSID and there are many more reviews about the book, but I believe that I have proven the point already with the notability of her book.
To see a listing of the book at Amazon.com, and also listed at Holistic Page, as well as Fields Books, Word Power Books, Gealina Online, Barnes And Noble Books, Powell's Books, ABD Sellers, Scribbly Gum Books, Sedona Journal Of Emergence, Insight Books, MSN Shopping, Alternatives Central, Spirit Wings, and this list just goes on and on and on for pages and pages and pages in Google Search for this book. It would just be ridiculous to list all the links on the internet to Christine Breese and her book. I do believe this proves that her and her book have notability.
The subject has been a guest on radio and TV shows, including Dave Alan's Nighthawk Series, and Baby Boomers Of Today or if you can't find the link there, go to Voice America and scroll down to the episode 3/4/08 - Baby Boomers Of Today Guest Christine Breese. If you would like to see a link to one of the TV shows she has been on in at a Station that is listed in your wikipedia at WTTV, go to http://youtube.com/watch?v=2h3ftUE2Vg0 if you would like to see a clip of the video.
Breese has also been to expos and presented many workshops, here is a link press release for one of them at http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200804/1208239619.html She has presented workshops at the New Life Expo see workshop listings at 4-4:50 p.m. Saturday Room 102D: “Use Your Heart Instead of Your Head!” with Christine Breese and Sunday at 2-2:50 p.m. Room 102F: “Manifesting Simplified & Surrender to Divine Will” with Christine Breese. She has also presented at Conscious Life Expo in Los Angelos and her lecture listing is at this url on their site. She is also scheduled to speak at all these expos again next year, and she is scheduled to speak at the upcoming New Life Expo in New York City. She has also facilitated retreats at both Mount Madonna Retreat Center, Breitenbush Hot Springs, listing for the retreat is at http://www.merchantcircle.com/blogs/University.of.Metaphyiscal.Sciences.800-521-6382/2007/12/October-22-2007-Breitenbush-Hot-Springs-Retreat-/54597 , Tree Of Life Tree Of Life in San Diego, and Harbin Hot Springs the listing is in many places, here is one at http://technorati.com/blogs/christinebreese.wordpress.com
The subject's videos and writings have been translated into Dutch at http://nl.truveo.com/tag/Breese and on youtube, and her videos have been linked to and viewed over 350,000 times through other people's websites who simply chose them by no encouragement from Breese or her organization, they did this of their own accord. If you search for the subject's name you will find massive amounts of links to her videos, her articles, her writings and her church and school. At youtube, this woman's videos have been watched 320,464 times exactly at www.youtube.com/MetaphysicalSiences
This teacher has thousands of students worldwide, and I think that I have proven beyond a doubt the notability through many verifiable outside sources and the fact that this person is a published author, writer, and substantial proof that she is a lecturer and teacher. If the likes of Eckhart Tolle, Gangaji, Adyashanti, Osho, and many other spiritual teachers who are also teaching in this tradition are listed in wikipedia, then this teacher should be listed as well. It is my goal to list several spiritual teachers in this particular tradition who are blatantly missing from wikipedia and should be here if wikipedia is to be an accurate source of information about teachers in this particular spiritual tradition who have earned a degree of recognition and notability in their field.
I have presented my case. I will dig deeper and present more facts and links if you like, but try to set your criticism aside for just one moment and look at the real facts of the situation and let go of opinions about these spiritual teachers just becuase you have never heard of him or her. Many other people have. Just because you haven't doesn't mean that they are not well known in their particular genre.
By the way, do I have to fight this hard every time I present an article to wikipedia? How do you guys ever get anything done on this site if every article posted takes this much work to fight for and just gets deleted as soon as it's written? I had a lot I wanted to contribute to wikipedia, but if it is this big a fight every time something gets posted, I don't see how wikipedia can move forward. I do appreciate you finally not deleting this article before I have had a chance to present my case, although you have deleted the one about the church over and over and over agine before I even had time to explain or have a chance to present my case, so this feels more fair and reasonable. This is more like it. I appreciate the time wikipedia has allowed for a presentation of why I respectfully disagree with the intentions for deletion by a couple of people who don't know anything about this particular person. I hope you can see more clearly why I feel that this person is notable, verifiable, and that my resources are plenty. I have been researching these teachers for a long time and I feel that I should be able to present my findings here. I only hope to make wikipedia more accurate in its reporting of these people who are so well recognized in thier field and yet have no listing here.
This was far more work than I planned on doing to present articles to wikipedia. I had hoped it would be a reasonable and fair process. While the other page I created does not feel treated reasonably and fairly, at least this one didn't get deleted before I could even finish typing my response to the users who wanted deletion. I hope I have educated the users as to the notability of this particular person I have found all over the internet and in spiritual magazines. Now please, don't just keep repeating that this person doesn't have any notability now that I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person does have notability. If you have contructive input to offer, I would like to hear it. ( SpiritBeing ( talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing) reply
(
SpiritBeing (
talk) 05:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)
reply
Strong opposition to deletion the above repetition of notability issues is erroneous, and there are plenty of third party websites, look at the article and the above, they are ignoring the ones that are third party because perhaps they are opposed to religions in this path? There is always opposition to this religion, and I believe they are using notability as an excuse. Look at the article, it has a long list of notability and a long list of third party sites that are verifiable, from press, to TV, to radio to listings. The woman's website ( I checked) has received 400,000 hits last year and the year before, and so far it has 200,000 hits, which means 1 million hits. I think that merits notability, besides all the third party sites provided which is within wikipedia guidelines and standards. At this point, people are only voicing opinions based on the fact that they either don't like this person, this religion, or this spiritual path, and using other issues as excuses, not proving their argument for non-notibility. I beleive notability has been proven beyond a doubt, but non-notability has not been proven, they just keep repeating it wihtout evidence.
Strong Keep (
SpiritBeing (
talk)SpiritBeing)
The result was Nomination withdrawn. See below. Non admin closing. --Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 23:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable magazine.
ukexpat (
talk) 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Redirect to Smash (album). The only keep comment that had any sensible argument in it stated, "Even though it fails WP:MUSIC...", which didn't help it's own argument. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 05:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Contested redirect. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 21:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced oneliner about a docking facility - not every place wher commercial boats can dock is notable - and this has no claim to notability. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Since the start of the AfD significant content has been added. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete chemicals are not inherently notable and this unsourced article purports to give nothing more than its chemical formula. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Redirecting to that section could cause confusion, since without references, the merged info would probably disappear quickly.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 04:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced oneliner about a drink with no indication why it's notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 08:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Complete copy/paste of the text from Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7), without following WP:REUSE. WP:CRYSTAL/ WP:NN: Page cannot be resonably re-written yet as no information has been released about season 8, except to say that is will air. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Leivick ( talk) 04:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced oneliner about tv episode, without anything indicating why this episode among the others is notable - falls far short of what is expected per WP:EPISODE. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 08:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced one-liner about a given name, with no indication that this name is significant; WP is not a baby-naming guide. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 08:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No official sources (Avex, news organizations, etc.) have even hinted at a cover album by Hamasaki. The Transmogrifier ( talk) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. Even her fans think it's a WP:HOAX. tomasz. 10:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is about a celebrity child, notability is not inherited. Author removed speedy tag. At best, should be a redirect to Jolie or Pitt. TN‑ X- Man 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
CD#A7 this is a speedy delete candidate. CSD was removed by the creator in contravention of wiki CSD guidelines. AfD is only required if a 3rd person contests CSD. -- triwbe ( talk) 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article is about a celebrity child and notability is not inherited. At best, this should be a redirect to Jolie or Pitt. TN‑ X- Man 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Leivick ( talk) 04:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Article provides false information, lacks notability, is unverifiable, original research, and is little more than a poorly expanded definition which belongs in a dictionary Jdrewitt ( talk) 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merged & redirected to U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co.#USFA Custom Shop. -- Stormie ( talk) 08:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Looks like a blatant advert to me. It is mentioned in the U.S. Fire Arms Mfg. Co. article; that would seem sufficient. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 18:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Leivick ( talk) 04:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to be an unnotable variation of XML. - IcĕwedgЁ ( ťalķ) 18:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect unsourced articles, keep sourced ones, per general agreement at the poll below. Mango juice talk 17:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTE; High School Conferences not notable as shown here. Material is mainly duplicate information anyway that is provided on a central list. Examples of articles that have been deleted from the central list already, Cincinnati Hills League (since re-added by User:RockMFR), Greater Miami Conference (since re-added by User:RockMFR), and Suburban League. Therefore these other 20+ articles that show no difference than those should be deleted as well. Here are some examples from other states that have had conferences deleted, Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference, Six Rivers Conference. These are the 27 articles proposed by User:UWMSports for deletion as stated in previous discussion. Other conferences will be evaluated individually. BurpTheBaby (Talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
PLEASE NOTE that User:RockMFR has brought back Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference without improvement since this AfD was created. Those have been added to the deletion list as they are articles brought back in their dead state by an admin who just had the power to do so.
Keep! I find these articles to be helpful in understanding the relationships between communities within a conference. And the history of certain conferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroys3rd ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC) — Leroys3rd ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep! As per Hobit. Radioinfoguy ( talk) 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC) reply
PLEASE NOTE that User:RockMFR has brought back Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference since this AfD was created. Those have been added to the deletion list. -- BurpTheBaby (Talk) 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, AfD is not a vote, but with this discussion ranging far and wide as the last one did, let's employ the same methods.
Here is my compromise suggestion: Keep articles with sources ( Ohio Cardinal Conference and Green Meadows Conference - are there any others I'm unaware of?). Delete unsourced articles, with no prejudice for recreation when they are sourced and include more than a list of squads. Move the two newly created articles Cincinnati Hills League and Greater Miami Conference to my userspace so I can put them with the other draft articles to be improved upon.
I know this isn't my ideal solution, or probably anyone else's, but it should solve the biggest problem that people have with the articles here. Please just sign underneath.
SUPPORT
AGAINST
The above is not a vote
I think its time for this AfD to be close and the compromise based on the % of people willing to accept it to be put into effect by the closing admin. It's been a couple days since anyone has commented, so lets end this. -- GoHuskies9904 ( talk) 18:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy userfy and tell user to publish elsewhere. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a manual/help page for a game. Not encylopedic content. Rob Banzai ( talk) 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 08:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Blatant crystal ballery and quite clearly fails WP:NFF. As reported in this article in Variety, the rights to the film have been sold, and that's pretty much it. PC78 ( talk) 18:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Stormie ( talk) 08:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album by Spider Loc. This album doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC guidelines. No independent coverage etc. Reverend X ( talk) 17:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect -- Leivick ( talk) 04:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mythological creature that fails WP:V. The article is unsourced since its inception in 2003. No on-topic search results, except one Google Books search result that seems to indicate that an angel of that name is mentioned (by name only) in the Book of Enoch. That one mention doesn't support an article dedicated to this subject. Sandstein 17:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Fallen Angel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeter'el and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neqa'el - Nabla ( talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mythological creature that fails WP:V. The article is unsourced since its inception in 2005. It's also entirely written in an in-universe style, to borrow a phrase frequently used in fiction AfDs. No on-topic search results, except one Google Books search result that seems to indicate that an angel of that name is mentioned (by name only) in the Book of Enoch. That one mention doesn't support an article dedicated to this subject. Sandstein 17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Fallen Angel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuma'el and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neqa'el - Nabla ( talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mythological creature that fails WP:V. The article is unsourced since its inception in 2003 (!). No on-topic search results, except one Google Books search result that seems to indicate that an angel of that name is mentioned (by name only) in the Book of Enoch. That one mention doesn't support an article dedicated to this subject. Sandstein 17:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, nothing apparent to establish notability of this mixtape, so going with WP:MUSIC standards. -- Stormie ( talk) 08:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. Mixtapes are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Fallen Angel. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuma'el and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeter'el - Nabla ( talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mythological creature that fails WP:V; the article is unsourced since December 2006. I couldn't find any on-topic Google, Google Scholar or Google Book hits. The (few) search results that are returned appear to deal with some other creature or concept from Jewish tradition. Sandstein 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Mango juice talk 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
An utterly nonnotable catch phrase. Only 45 unique google hits for "color of the bikeshed" plus 29 unique google hits for "coloUr of the bikeshed". The text is one big original research plus some tentative refs to hacker lore sources. `' Míkka >t 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
At this point, the preponderance of responses suggest keeping an improved/recasted article. To summarize:
Proposed actions: a) Keep the article. b) Refocus and retitle it to address the concept rather than the phrase. c) Integrate it better with other Parkinson material. d) Clean up the sources. [And with luck e) Never need to discuss this again.] Kindly add any dissenting comments below, with explanation, please – e.g. explaining why you feel that the quoted sources are inadequate. :) Spinality ( talk) 19:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I would be happy to merge & redirect the article to one on the Missouri House of Reps election, but there does not seem to be one. If I've missed it, point it out to me, I'd be happy to undelete, merge & redirect. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:CRYSTAL, may merit deletion per WP:RECENTISM; he doesn't appear to be particularly notable apart from election coverage. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 16:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), the nomination was withdrawn. Ruslik ( talk) 06:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Nomination withdrawn - see the end of this discussion.
This is a misleading article about conference management software. I've tried to stubify it but various editors insist on reinstating it, so a proper debate is needed.
The article fails
WP:VER and
WP:NOTABILITY for the following reasons:
Essentially, it's spam. If it wasn't for the fact that it's freeware it would have been deleted long ago
andy (
talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep per consensus Keeper ǀ 76 22:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school. Prod was removed and a merge was suggested, but the material here is largely trivial and unreferenced so a merge doesn't make much sense as the material isn't viable even in another host article. Mikeblas ( talk) 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Anheuser-Busch InBev does not exist, as the merger is not yet approved. Thus, this is an unnecessary crystal ball article that simply repeats content from existing articles. The article should be recreated later if/when the new company actually exists. Superm401 - Talk 15:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted as there is one major author who blanked the page ( WP:CSD#G7). Editor advised to use WP:CSD in future. - Jéské ( v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 06:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Market requirement ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Author asking for speedy delete or AFD. Copyright issues. Spinacia ( talk) 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. None of the suggestions for keeping this article have addressed the problem of notability. Sher eth 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Think About Life; Keep (no consensus) on Miracle Fortress. Waggers ( talk) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
These two bands do not pass any category for WP:MUSIC. The only reference for Think About Life is an independent vegan blogger who interviewed the band and attended one show in Brooklyn. The only reference for Miracle Fortress is their myspace page...and I'm not even going to get started on that one. -- Адам12901 T/ C 15:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete. Glass Cobra 19:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No content, unknown band. This is not Myspace:Bands... imho at least. Carbonrodney ( talk) 14:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Lenticel ( talk) 00:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources, looks like a hoax. Sceptre ( talk) 14:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Delete arguments appear to be largely unfounded or have been addressed. Mango juice talk 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced list which add no meaning to any articles or Wikipedia Bidgee ( talk) 14:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Lets do a Google search of The Sydney Morning Herald to see how the newspaper uses these terms: Eastern Suburbs, Northern Beaches, Lower North Shore, Upper North Shore, Inner West. Is that proof enough for everyone? -- Lester 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 09:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game mod. Only 13 Google hits for "Primal Evil" + "Half-Life" [20], a few of them not pertaining to this subject. Speedy removed on the somewhat unusual grounds of "not a biography." Fails WP:V, WP:N, and not a game guide. RGTraynor 14:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, it's currently non-notable, but I'm sure it's going to be BIG! I don't know if you are a gamer, but if you are, then imagine playing God of War on the computer screen. There are currently only two concept-arts, but soon a trailer will be released. Please, give this mod's page in Wiki a chance!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hristian ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete -- Leivick ( talk) 04:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
In one word: Notability. I could find nothing that would justify an article. user: Everyme 13:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Reptilian humanoid#In fiction. Consensus is difficult to assess because during the AfD, the article has been cut down from a huge unsourced laundry list of appearances in fiction to two paragraphs. Taking into account that there's at least consensus that this should not be an article of its own, the sensible thing to do is to merge the remaining two paragraphs into the main article. (The opinion of the banned user taking part in this discussion was discounted.) Sandstein 17:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Since its previous AfD one year ago, only two in-line external links to primary sources and no reliable, secondary sources have been added. Criteria for inclusion seems based on WP:OR -- where is the publication that identifies these entries as "reptilian humanoids"? Not even citations to dialog to justify entries' inclusion here. -- EEMIV ( talk) 13:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
merge with reptilian humanoids. No need for a separate article. Lol at Will's comment.:) Sticky Parkin 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep -- Stormie ( talk) 09:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
looks more like an ad than an article. a Google searched yielded pretty much the whole article as a result item. flydubai has no website of its own...
i dunno... but i guess you can vote to keep if you think its worthwhile. Carbonrodney ( talk) 13:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 09:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a band with extremely questionable notability. A quick g-search shows no independent reliable sources. The only claim to notability is that they have released two albums, but these have been independent releases as they aren't signed by a record label. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 09:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails both WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE; being well familiar with the series, each "case" is basically a level within the game. While very high level overview of each case is useful in context of each game, separate breakout and description of each case is both adding too much plot (we've struck out long case summaries before within the articles), and basically fails WikiProject Video Games's "not a game guide". Also, this now potentially leaves triplication of content on the individual games' pages, the list of AA characters page, and this page. Notability may also be an issue but not the main one: In the games themselves, no case alone is really notable (save perhaps the last one of the first game, only because it was specially recreated for the DS version - however, that's about the game, not the case, really); the total sum of all cases are not notable either, though I will say that one could consider this a spinout of the series article. A possible option is merging the specific cases back to their game articles, though again, these articles tend to edge on an overall plot summary and then one-two sentence descriptions of each case, not the level of detail here (and if you start going into more detail for some of the cases, it's impossible to stop). MASEM 13:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 09:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable apparently self-promoting New Zealand social climber. The article itself is heavy with peacock terms, but in trying to track down whether this youngster is genuinely notable, the NZ Google turns up only 3000 hits ... and looking over them, almost all of them refer to other Sam Sargents. His purportedly more famous father has a good bit many fewer hits, and "Sam Sargent" + "It-Boy" has just this article. It doesn't seem to be a hoax, but the few webpage sources listed in the article mention the subject only in passing. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V RGTraynor 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Stormie ( talk) 09:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Half the single-line article is a definition, as well. Was PRODed, but has been deleted through PROD once before. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 13:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1 among others. — Wknight94 ( talk) 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. Appears to massively fail WP:WEB and completely lacks sources. Been deleted once through WP:PROD [23], so bringing to AfD. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 13:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.
The headcount is roughly evenly divided. The "keep" proponents argue that the list is adequately sourced and organised. The "delete" side counters that the list as a whole is original research by synthesis because of the (perceived) lack of an accepted definition of pederasty. Furthermore, in the opinion of the proponents of deletion, assigning the label "pederasty" to all sorts of often poorly documented relationships is also original research.
Although I find the "delete" argument to be more persuasive prima facie, there's really no objective basis for me to say that the "keep" side is wrong with their assertions to the contrary. For that, I'd have to examine every individual item and its source, which is obviously infeasible in this context. In short, I can't determine whose arguments are stronger, and so we've got no consensus.
Obviously, WP:BLP must be strictly observed in this article – some of the children involved, at least, might still be alive. Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP. Sandstein 18:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This article began its life as a list, but has over time become the storinghouse for any uncited claim of any person in history whom any editor wants to claim was involved in pederasty. In a number of cases (e.g. Leonardo DaVinci and Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein), material appears in this omnibus which has been roundly rejected from the main article, thus turning this list into a de-facto POV content fork. Lastly, the decision for this to be a list, rather than a category (which might be defensible) smacks of original research: the desire to synthesize and publish original commentary on Wikipedia, which violates WP:NOR.
This article was nominated for deletion a couple of years ago, but the discussion surrounding it was very lightweight, on both sides of the issue. I'm hoping this nomination will get a bit more serious attention and thorough discussion. Nandesuka ( talk) 12:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
( talk) 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Haiduc's reasons for keeping this article mirror my own. Welland R ( talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I have to agree the fuzzy and over lax definition of pederasty needs to be fixed. What are the age cut offs? I don't think being with someone 18 or over should count at all and if the two guys are just separated by a couple years then it shouldn't count either. Nocturnalsleeper ( talk) 03:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Of course, a specific example of a problem in an article doesn't speak to deletion at all. But I think this one does get across the general problem of subjective judgment inherent to Haiduc's "pederastic" label and its application to specific cases.
The article's lede defines pederasty as occurring "between adult men and adolescent boys". Well, down in the Eighteenth century section we encounter two couples, both from Europe, occurring sixty years apart. The broad social context -- in terms of how the passage into adulthood would be understood -- is the same.
Now, were I the one arbitrarily selecting people to be listed in this article, I should exclude both these couples. In my opinion, zero out of the four individuals is "adolescent" - one pair consisted of two adults, the other of an adult and a small child.
But it doesn't really matter how my judgment differs from Haiduc's here, what matters is that the couples can't be included on or excluded from the list without its subjective application. Sources are given for both these stories - but those sources speak to the facts of history, not to the categorization of a late teenager as an adult "pederast" in one case and as the non-adult partner of a "pederast" in the other. To say nothing of the weird way that the apparently non-sexual relationship with the 10-year-old is given an erotic cast by references to the boys future "pursuit" of "boys" -- whether adolescent or pre-, the article doesn't say.
Another note -- most striking about the inclusion of a 10-year-old is that it tends to work against the idea that "pederasty" ought to be considered as something distinct from "pedophilia" -- a distinction that is often and fiercely defended on Wikipedia in discussions of these articles.
I do not think that pederasty is the same thing as pedophilia. I don't think it's anything; I think it is a phantom. It's a category that cannot be objectively defined even for one culture, much less when generalized to every culture. Its use in the culture outside of Wikipedia -- like that of "sodomy" or "natural" or "masculine" -- may be of encyclopedic interest as a subject, but its use as a judgment by Wikipedia editors will always be strongly POV.
Dybryd ( talk) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Conested PROD. Fails WP:MUSIC. Only references provided are myspace and youtube. role player 11:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), notabily established. Ruslik ( talk) 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable personal project. The article establishes no notability apart from a single page at About.com; this does not constitute "significant coverage" as required by the WP:N guidelines. Megata Sanshiro ( talk) 11:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected to Buttocks. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
vandalism
User:RRaunak 11:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
advertise
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was REDIRECT. This was a tough one and I will explain my rationale as fully as I can. If AfD were a simple vote, this would be Kept and I'd have had no aggravation deciding it, but it isn't. The subject of the article is "MI-5 Persecution". We are establishing the notability of this topic, not an opera or an individual who may have popularised the term. As such, it's an internet meme. These come along frequently and some are deemed notable, some are not. The article itself presents no evidence of notability of this term as a meme. Looking through the AfD contributions below, Michael Bednarek argues for the notability of the opera, not this meme. MMetro argues that deleting this article will create issues in another, but I'm unconvinced that this is valid argument for keeping something. I'm not sure a redirect to List of Usenet personalities is justified. Drutt says he's highly notable, yet we have no evidence of the masses of world correspondents who write on Internet issues making it so. Besides, we're not deciding the notability of the individual - that's already been decided. It was Chris, right at the end, who hit the nail on the head. This is a minor meme term, of dubious notability, but it can usefully point to The Corley Conspiracy, which seems to be able to hold its head up as notable. Dweller ( talk) 09:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Corley. Same subject, same issues. Yes, I was the creator of the Corley article. H2G2 have also deleted this. Corley is either insane (so we should not mock him) or some kind of Turing test experiment. Nobody knows which. Nobody cares any more. Guy ( Help!) 11:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted a1, insufficient context. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
A tomfoolery,Vandalism
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Frank | talk 11:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Danm nonsense
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete ( criteria A1) -- Allen3 talk 11:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
total vandalism
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Allen3 per CSD G10 as an attack page. WilliamH ( talk) 11:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
what do you know about this
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was close and relist separately without prejudice as to the final outcome. I do not see any value to be gained in leaving this blanket discussion open any longer, given that there is reasonably broad consensus already that the articles have different levels of notability and sources and should be considered separately. Thatcher 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The liberal dilemma - how can we show tolerance towards those who are intolerant? Let's respect each other's views and the religious practices of others. It is a published fact that one of the key commitments/samaya of the Shugden practice is to abandon the texts and traditions of the Nyingma. The stance of asking 'respect of the religious practices of others' sounds particularly hollow. I believe this issue cannot be resolved in the near future.
We already know that Jimmy Wales believes that two warring factions can never, ever, hammer out an article that is NPOV. He has said (regarding the NKT article, but it could just as well apply here) [1]In light of the strong internal censorship of ideas and thoughts, along with almost medieval practices of shunning within the NKT organisation itself, my guess is that it would be preferable for the pro-NKT and pro-Shugden lobby to have nothing at all, rather than to have articles that do not subscribe to their views. In my experience, as an editor of Wikipedia for over four years, the entire NKT-related articles - all the way through from Dorje Shugden Dorje Shugden controversy and beyond have been subject to massive edit wars and biased views. External publications and references often do not help here, as there are no unbiased opinions available. Why not? A primary issue here is whether or not DS is a Buddha. Of course, the majority of the planet, if it mattered (which under WP guidelines it doesn't) would say 'no'. The majority of primary literature, outside of a very few (if somewhat influential) authors says 'no', but that isn't relevant, because the yay-sayers are vocal, numerous, and have a vast amount of karma (and samaya) risked on that one key fact. WP is not designed to be a soapbox for views - and yet again and again, we find that it is being used for just that purpose. The NKT-focussed pages have caused considerable upset and the vocal minority (who persistently use temporary accounts, unregistered accounts, and sock puppets to mask their identities) have managed to drive off other editors, some of them being pushed into retirement. Not only that, the same minority has made no significant contribution to Wikipedia, in that their sole focus are these controversial, NKT-focussed articles. Religious advocacy pieces have no place on Wikipedia. At the moment, my view is that the entire set of pages are costing legitimate editors and contributers to Wikipedia more time and energy than they do bring value to it. In light of this, I am beginning to be convinced that the sole recourse is to AfD Dorje Shugden/ Dorje Shugden Controversy and any other related pages, with a five year moratorium before they can be resurrected. As I understand it, such an action would be favourable in GKG's eyes - he has already ordered that the discussion groups be closed off elsewhere - he asks his students to get on with practice, rather than waste time chit-chatting on the Internet in a manner which has little or no value. Je Rinpoche (Lama Tsongkhapa - the root lama of the Gelugpa, and the appointed root lama of the NKT) says in the Three Principles of the PathThe philosophy that NPOV is achieved by warring parties is one that I have always rejected, and in practice, I think we can easily see that it absolutely does not work. I would prefer to have no article on New Kadampa Tradition than to have one which is a constant battleground for partisans, taking up huge amounts of times of good editors, legal people, and me. What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground.
so I am pretty sure that he also would see the time and effort spent on these articles as wasteful.Resort to solitute and generate the power of effort. Accomplish quickly your final aim, my child
If we don't do this, what other options are left? What is needed is a completely unbiased admin with years of experience, tolerance of a saint, and weeks of time on her hands to assist and guide in the training of editors and balancing of articles. The current contributors and editors are far too involved in the issues at hand. The article list is long. Time is precious. Here is the article list that I know of: Dorje Shugden Dorje Shugden controversy Trode Khangsar Western Shugden Society.
The WP community cannot expect the current group of interested individuals to deliver short, sharp, purely-factual articles with individuals proposing article mergers and coming to the noticeboards as often as required. Why NOT? because it has already happened repeatedly for more than four years. Nothing changed. Sometimes the pro-NKT got their way, sometimes the anti-NKT got their way. The process needs outsiders to sit on the articles for quite some time. Or they need deletion with moratorium.
I suggest this with real, legitimate misgivings. The NKT has completely excised the existence of individuals like Thubten Gyatso (NKT) from their records and publications - even though he contributed a huge amount to their movement over many years, and gave initiations to many students. Likewise, they have worked particularly hard to hide some of the less palatable aspects of their movement, and their activities towards the Tibetan Community have been divisive; they have then projected their own faults onto the Dalai Lama. The facts (as seen by the outside world) are not in accordance with the interests of the NKT. But they are intelligent, dedicated, computer-literate and have plenty of time on their hands. Deleting these articles actually helps to reduce the opportunity to air the issues that are well-known and published about the NKT and Dorje Shugden. A possible weakness of WP is that it gives too much opportunity to the minor communities to self-justify their position, and often the sole opponents are jaded, or destroyed ex-members (see eg User:kt66. I consider the NKT-related articles are like a brother to the Scientology-related articles, though they have received less attention from on high. ( 20040302 ( talk) 11:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable webcontent, a1 no context, g3 hoax. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
hoax not in google
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete g2, test page. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
vandalism
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
nonsense article
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
advert /Orkut community eh...Who goes to orkut
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 11:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Seemingly non-notable band. No sources, tho talk page message claims press mentions; Google is less certain (plus i have to snigger a little at the idea of an Indiana local newspaper explaining the 'hilarious' story behind the band name). Prod removed by IP. tomasz. 10:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was G12 as copyvio by PeaceNT , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Chirps• Clams• Chowder) 13:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable and unsourced, 559 google hits for "Bok Fu Do" -wikipedia drops to 134 if you navigate to later pages. Make big claims ( name dropping)with not even a primary source or site to start from, full clean up would remove ~50% of the article. Nate1481( t/ c) 10:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ATHLETE - baseball player who has not competed professionally. Majorclanger ( talk) 10:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was REDIRECT. Planewalker Dave ( talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Almost a year ago it was proposed that this article should be merged and deleted and yet nothing happened. On July 8th I proposed this article be deleted using the proposed deletion tag as it is clearly breaking the WP:FUTFILMS policy. We have no evidence that this film is still in development, let alone "confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography". On the 12th an anonymous IP address user removed the deletion proposal tag and provided no reason.
Almost all important and reliable information in this article is at the end of the Luke Cage article, so no merging really take place. I really think this article should be deleted so in the interests of fairness and obeying the Wikipedia deletion policy I'm proposing it for deletion in this manner. Planewalker Dave ( talk) 10:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, CSD A7 (non-notable bio). -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 10:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
nonsense
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete, CSD G1 (nonsense). tomasz. 11:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
a known tomfoolery
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. I will now boldly implement a solution that seems good to me; this is independent from my role as closer. Mango juice talk 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
no reference
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 09:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
vandalism
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete per consensus. Keeper ǀ 76 22:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
nonsense
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 09:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete, vandalism. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 09:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
bad bords
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy Delete, WP:CSD#A1. Frank | talk 11:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
nonsense
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 08:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete, nonsense. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 08:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Bad words
[+]►▌●√Ω ЯЯΛUNΛΣ● ▌ 08:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. John254 23:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable novel that fails the five notability criteria in WP:BK. The series itself isn't even notable enough to have an article and the author is little more than a stub. A quick Google search found not a single reliable source that wasn't a store site, official site, or personal, self-published site for this book. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 08:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted G4 by Alexf. Non-admin closure. - FrankTobia ( talk) 23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This song is only a leaked demo intended for the new album of Beyonce Knowles. -- Efe ( talk) 08:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, but was merged by apparent consensus. Sandstein 17:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
dicdef, whose definition is better met at primate. UtherSRG (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all delete votes. -- JForget 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wiki. There is a link to it from the Ratchet & Clank article. That is sufficient. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 08:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BK. A search on Google Books and the Google News archive yielded no positive result. The book itself may be a great source about Star Wars, but it doesn't merit an article about itself. user: Everyme 08:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person, only 29 results on Google. Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW(non-admin closure) A very notable piece of malware. - IcĕwedgЁ ( ťalķ) 08:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Spyware. Does Wikipedia need an article on every piece of shit spyware out there? There are millions of them. --Index
The result was delete -- Leivick ( talk) 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Can not find a single mention of this newsletter anywhere. - IcĕwedgЁ ( ťalķ) 07:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as hoax. Sandstein 17:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Article reads like an ad. No references at all (the two ref tags lead to no info about the organisation). I put a multiple issues tag on the article in April, since then no improvement. Not only does it seem that this don't pass notabilit criteria, a google search gives no indication to the existance of the organisation. Its website [30] does not contain any contact address or phone numbers, no records of any activity of the organisation. It might thus be a hoax altogether or a one-man internet stunt. Soman ( talk) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Leivick ( talk) 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:Cricket has developed criteria to indicate what WP:Athlete means in the context of cricket at WP:CRIN. For a modern-era player they should have played in a first-class, List A or official Twenty20 match. Whilst this player has played for a national side, he has not played any of those forms of cricket, hence fails the notability criteria as agreed by consensus at WP:Cricket and therefore fails WP:Athlete. Andrew nixon ( talk) 07:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per unanimous vote -- JForget 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I've brought this here because it has been WP:PRODded and de-prodded several times in the past few weeks. I couldn't find any sources to demonstrate notability. Time for it to be discussed here. Michig ( talk) 05:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Notability is established by the mentioned sources. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 17:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Of marginal notability. No assertions of notability is given. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 04:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 10:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not asserted on this contested prod. Might be speedy eligible. Non-notable person except if he wins the election. See WP:FUTURE for the policy on predicting the future. Royal broil 04:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was obvious delete Shii (tock) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
More neologism shenanigans. This one seems limited to a single college campus. Ecoleetage ( talk) 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply
unreferenced food stub whose notability cannot be verified. Tavix ( talk) 03:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - fails WP:MUSIC notability requirements. Tan ǀ 39 13:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This artist fails WP:MUSIC. There was an earlier dispute regarding whether this meets CSD A7, but nonetheless it still fails the general biographical and verification policies. JBsupreme ( talk) 03:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I believe this is a violation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All this is is a mnemonic device to remember a set of conjunctions. I don't see any encyclopedic value here. Powers T 02:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N, couldn't find any reliable sources on this at all. Wizardman 02:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete -- Leivick ( talk) 01:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Fails
WP:MOVIE.
SchuminWeb (
Talk) 02:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
*Looks notable:
reply
The result was delete. -- Leivick ( talk) 01:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Only link site is the subject's web page. No independent reliable sources to establish subject's individual notability. Artene50 ( talk) 02:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Close based more on strength of arguments, than numbers. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Per precedent, lists of B-sides, unreleased songs, etc. are almost always trivial and therefore unnecessary. This has been tagged for refs since a year ago with no improvement.
Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 01:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 10:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mason webb is a non-notable person. Tagged with the general notability tag since January. Tavix ( talk) 01:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 05:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for things made up in a day. Its a shame there is not an applicable speedy that could deal with this article. Creator contested prod. - IcĕwedgЁ ( ťalķ) 01:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply
This article would questionably stand up to a Speedy Delete A7 (for failing to state why the band is important) and a prod (for notability) was contested. The article only stands up to band notability guidelines for having two albums released on Candlelight records and nothing more. The article does not cite any references despite being tagged as such since March 2008. The content of the article serves primarily to provide information regarding the side projects of non-notable band members. Based on these reasons (primarily the lack of any citations), it is easy to come to the conclusion that this article exists in Wikipedia primarily for vanity. — X S G 01:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted; content previously transwikied to Wikia/merged into other articles at a misplaced title.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 01:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable character, I tried to find him in the main Naruto and Naruto character articles to see if there was a place to redirect this, but I couldn't find anyplace on Wikipedia to point it, there is a soft redirect at Meizu (Naruto) to a naruto wiki. LegoTech·( t)·( c) 01:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 10:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Mixtapes fail WP:MUSIC LegoTech·( t)·( c) 00:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod on the basis that more than one rape ! However per WP:ONEEVENT which is policy. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. We have an article on the event for which this person is notable - ie Sydney gang rapes and he is listed in that article. I think listing there is sufficient with a paragraph or so of mention and this separate article is unwarranted. More than one rape may have been involved but I think for the purpose of scope the gang rapes in Sydney as covered by the article are one event. Matilda talk 00:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they similarly fall within WP:ONEEVENT for the same series of attacks already covered by an article on that event:
The following articles have not had proposed deletion contested but are listed here in case that is the case so that they are part of the same discussion:
-- Matilda talk 00:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nominator withdrawal [37]. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy ( talk) 02:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Unverified and not-notable. Article doesn't make any attempt to verify that this place actually exists. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 00:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Ty 01:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
There is a clear conflict of interest happening here. The article was speedy deleted and then recreated. The original editor removed the speedy delete tag and was warned. He then switched to an anonymous IP address to remove the tag. I thought it was best to bring it to AfD. This is unsourced and the subject is of limited notability. His claims to notability are unreferenced. Although I'm loath to bring in vanity, this is clearly a self-promotional article by a subject of questionable notability freshacconci speaktome 00:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. I note a number of Keep opinions that contradict policy / deletion protcol - Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is not a policy page, but contains much useful advice. We do have some precedent that major releases announced by movie studios or, for that matter, record labels, can be regarded as de facto and overcoming WP:CRYSTAL, but this article presents no RS recording such an announcement. Anyone finding RS (not a single mention on Amazon) for the launch can let me know and I'll recreate the article for them to add the RS to, and I'll !vote Keep if there's a subsequent second AfD. Dweller ( talk) 10:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
No notability or significant coverage established, or likely to be (without breaching WP:CRYSTAL territory, anyway). PROD was rejected on claim that "All films, whether theatrical or otherwise, have wikipedia articles." The very existence of inclusion criteria for films, as well as more obvious factors, rather strongly dispute this assertion. Vianello ( talk) 00:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete until meaningful content exists. "It will take place on Halloween and appears to be loosely based of the classic A Pup Named Scooby-Doo episode Ghost Who's Coming To Dinnner. The film will most likely be dedicated to Joseph Barbera, who died during production of the previous film, Chill Out, Scooby-Doo! " - People are seriously voting to keep this? No meaningful content could possibly exist right now. JohnnyMrNinja 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The article does establish notability as reliable sources have been found. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy ( talk) 02:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web site, does not pass WP:WEB requirements. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
It already has a listing on the German side of Wikipedia, which does provide references as to its notability. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidedia Is there a reason for a German-languange site to be listed seperately on the English-language side of wikipedia? Khanaris ( talk) 00:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply