< 17 January | 19 January > |
---|
The result was Withdrawing nomination she actually meets WP:MUSIC. LibStar ( talk) 02:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. hardly anything in gnews which is a bit surprising since the article claims she has performed in some English speaking countries. would reconsider if someone searches in Armenian or Russian but no article exists for her in these langauges. LibStar ( talk) 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. No rationale has been given for deletion and no one other than the nominator has suggested deletion. ( non-admin closure) Blodance the Seeker 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Subject is not notable apart from her illness and her parents, the article is actually more about her parents, suggest a merge or a redirect to either the parents or the illness or the medical center her parents have opened. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
before nominating this article I noted that
User:Upsala did a phenomenal job reviewing the citations for accuracy and tagging the text where questions still exist. The article has significant violations of
WP:COI that make it difficult to wade through; in addition, most of the sources are in Portuguese, complicating matters. I removed the most detailed citation in English, which was to a past version of the subject's Wikipedia userpage. He may indeed be notable in Portuguese, but based on my review and Upsala's work I can find no evidence of sufficient notability for inclusion in the English Wikipedia.
otherl
left 17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
Answer - Web of Science lists 33 articles authored or coauthored by Sabbatini as being cited at least once. (Most of the "Selected Publications" S. listed in the WP article have never been cited, according to both W. of S. and Google Scholar.) Of these 33, 22 have been cited exactly once (in some cases, by S himself), 6 were cited 2-3 times, and the rest were cited 7, 10, 24, 28, and 28 times. On none of these 5 was S the sole or even lead author. (In fact with a sigle exception every paper, on which S was the sole or lead author, has been cited exactly zero or one time; the exception: 3 times.)
As to "Champions" and popular-science writing award, these don't come anywhere near the guidelines of WP:PROF: "...major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc, always qualify [or] lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige [such as] certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize, etc." "Receipt of an award" and "inclusion in a list" don't pass muster. Upsala ( talk) 04:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Well, I'm not a big fan of cold metrics in isolation, but it's obvious that no one has taken enough notice of anything Sabbatini's done to write about it. This doesn't mean he hasn't done interesting and useful things. He has. But they're not notable if no one's noted them. Actually, things are even worse than my summary above suggests: on one of the two papers with 28 cites, S. was one of a dozen coauthors! Upsala ( talk) 19:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Since I am the person under scrutiny, I will not manifest myself over keeping or not this article. I have tried to contribute to Wikipedia because I believed in the concept. Now I know that what is notoriety for Wikipedia can be better illustrated by obscure football players, videogame characters or, more interestingly, a List of pornographic actresses by decade.
I will now retire as a contributing editor to Wikipedia, with more than 150 articles started by me.
Do what you want regarding the article, there are hundreds of copies of it in Wikipedia copycats.
Upsala, who started all this, shows a worrying feature of Wikipedia, which is that unknown, anonymous contributors like him, have more credibility than an indentified, bona-fine, author. He has systematically and obsessively destroyed a lot of my contributions to Wikipedia, which makes me think whether he is some personal enemy of mine. The universal nature of English Wikipedia is threatened by arguments like the above, that I am a native of a Portuguese-speaking country. If a person who has hundreds of published articles in Portuguese and several books in this language, and whose credentials cannot be verified just because they are in Portuguese, then we cannot expect much about Wikipedia'a vaunted neutral and unbiased stand. In regard to notoriety, this is a more serious issue. If a person who has been (properly docomented) a founder, president, vice-president, secretary and director of informatics and director of education of three large national learned societies, including the Brazilian Medical Association (140,000 members) received awards and nominations who put him among the 50 best known authors and scientists in the country, then you all should revise what constitutes notoriety. Now I understand the reason why 99,9% of Brazilian scientists I have contacted to propose a systematic list of biographies in Wikipedia have refused: they think that it is not serious, academically speaking, and that they don't give a damn if they are listed or not.
I am now moving to be an author of Medpedia, which is supported by Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Californa at Berkeley and Wisconsin University, and which forbids ignorant non-entities, anonymous contributors, like Upsala to write anything, and which recognizes and shows the leadind editors to each article. Lost my time here. R.Sabbatini ( talk) 16:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
You all may notice by the list of Upsala contributions that he entered Wikipedia as an anonymous contributor on January 3rd 2010 exclusively to target the destruction and smearing of Dr. Sabbatini's valuable contributions to Wikipedia. He asked for a reference every two or three words of the bio article, which is patently an exaggeration, otherwise 90% of all bios in Wikipedia would have to be deleted. Upsala's only goal seems to be to delete Dr. Sabbatini' biography and as many as his contributions as possible. I suggest that a more responsible editor restores the entire article, deleting only obvious self-propaganda, and block User Upsala. The Philosopher of Sao Paulo ( talk) 04:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Note: An editor appears to have inadvertantly reopened this debate. I'm reverting to the close and advising them to start another AFD if they wish. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to "keep" Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance – mostly brief notices of his running from office. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb ( talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
For normal candidates I'd normally agree. But the notoriety of Hastert's last name has garnered national media attention to this race and I think it warrants remaining on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titomuerte ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pre-K program. Declined the speedy because the article is technically about a school, but irregardless this has no place on Wikipedia. 2 says you, says two 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Nomination on behalf of IP 98.248.32.44 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), who completed steps 1 and 3 of the AfD process and left the following note on the talk page: "Fails notability criteria - has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. 98.248.32.44 ( talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)" reply
I am neutral and only listing this in good faith on behalf of the IP user who followed the instructions in the {{
afd1}}
template. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge to Amyraldism. Tone 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This was a term coined by Norman Geisler, but the article has confused it with the "Four point Calvinism", or Amyraldianism. Geisler's views properly belong in the article about him. StAnselm ( talk) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:CRYSTAL issue or !vote has been countered and does not apply. ( non-admin closure) Dusti SPEAK!! 16:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non- notable film. Despite the notability of its cast and its subject matter, no reliable results can be found for the existence of this film. Several rumors seem to have floated around the internet regarding its existence, but even the IMDB entry seems hinky, with an "official site" that links to an anonymous IP address rather than a named domain. Prod denied by author. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem notable enough for its own article (the other Microsoft Ribbons don't have their own article), merge to Ribbon (computing) possibly. fetch comms ☛ 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep; non-admin closure. Regard this as a unanimous keep after the article was expanded during the deletion discussion and referenced with reliable sources. Mkativerata ( talk) 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete this unreleased film. The notability of which has yet to be determined, if it ever comes out. JBsupreme ( talk) 21:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Icewedge ( talk) 04:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. I see some press releases and mentions on a few university websites, but I do not see any significant coverage of this day being observed by any kind of reliable third party publications. [18] JBsupreme ( talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The protest is a historical event more than a current one. So unsuprisingly, those organizations that still carry it on are the only ones to report it. At the time there certainly were many references in third party publications. Of course, this was before the internet, and it was a news event.
It seems better to keep the article and provide some such sources if they're needed. For example, this [ May 7 1981 discussion in the Cornell Daily Sun]. This paper has a 'history' column that mentions the protest [ Outrider vol 13] I'm afraid I don't have a stack of college papers from the mid 1980's available at the moment, but I suppose I could go find some.
I believe this meets the criteria of 'Significant Coverage' (it's the focus of the article in many cases) 'Reliable' (commercial publishers) secondary sources (the book mention, for instance) 'independent of the subject' (it's easy to find negative references, and certainly the scholarly references should count)
The page is linked (to Gay_rights_in_the_United_States).
The protest was important enough that the LGBT Historical Archive in San Francisco included several flyers for it in a public display of artifacts of the LGBT rights movement.
The protest is mentioned in 8 different books in the Google books collection, for example Wolf, Michelle (1991). Gay People, Sex, Media. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press. p. 248.
ISBN
0-918393-77-9. {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Finally, we should look at the 'would this be in a paper encyclopedia?', to which I have to answer yes. The article seems like something a student or researcher of LGBT history would find useful.
I admit the article has problems. It seems a better use of editor's energy to improve the article than to delete it.
20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniepoo ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable recording artist. Ridernyc ( talk) 21:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable compilation. Kekkomereq4 ( talk) 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable tag team. They have not done anything notable (at least yet), they have only teamed together twice in fact. They could possibly become notable in the future, but I don't think they are yet. TJ Spyke 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete Absoulutly nothing notable about these 2 except they #1 contenders to the Unified Tag Team Championship which like Jeri-Show (who actually won the titles) doesn't qualify them as notable.-- C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Add-on I can actually name a lot of teams that won tag titles (or at least were a contender to them) that don't have there own pages. 1. CM Punk and Kofi Kingston 2. Rey Mysterio and Batista 3. Jeri-Show 4. Batista and John Cena 5. John Cena and Shawn Michaels 6. MVP and Mark Henry etc. must I go on. Thoses teams are just like these 2 un-notable besides winning or qualifying for tag titles.-- C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Exactly why should we have a page for a team that hasn't won the titles when we don't even have pages for teams who have won the titles.-- C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 23:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I know that they didn't win the titles for 12 years what I mean is those teams I listed they are un-notable as they didn't do anything also I think all of those teams except John Cena and Shawn Michaels were deleted through AfD which is your point I think anyway. Also DX they were actually noteable they actually did things that would catch people's eyes this team all they have done is shave people's head and are #1 contenders to the titles.-- C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Yah heres it from the page:
So your DX argument is irrelevant. FYI i'm adding a reference section so you know i'm not lying.-- C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Crackpot theory claims to overturn the Standard Model, replacing the quark description of the proton by claiming it is actually a black hole with no internal structure. The sum total of supporting citation for this article is a single reference to an obscure "award" from a "Computing Anticipatory Systems" (not peer reviewed by physicists). CosineKitty ( talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No strong argument for keeping, and the delete arguments include concerns about notability, WP:CRYSTAL, and indeed verifiability given some of the conflicting information. No prejudice against recreation if the film is released in some fashion and more info becomes available. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Unable to find multiple third party reliable sources that confirm this film meets WP:NF or even WP:GNG. I was able to find an IMDb entry for Ullam but the information in IMDb differs greatly from what is described in the article, creating doubt that this is the same film. This reference provided is from a 2008 article and the soundtrack was supposedly released in 2004; the film in the IMDb link is claimed to have been released in 2005. I'm not sure if several films are being mistaken for one another or if this film is one of those films in perennial production that is having a hard time getting wrapped up but I don't think it qualifies for its own article at this time. I'll gladly withdraw my nomination if proper sources can be found to show notability. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
SitNGo Wizard is written like an advertisement, even though I have removed several peacock term filled sentences. It also has questionable notability as it is an obscure software product applicable to only one form of poker, and has been written entirely by one editor... DegenFarang ( talk) 17:27, 18 January 2010 (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}} . |
If any of the "refs" had been to solid reputable sites, I would have left them.
If you haven't seen spam removed since 2007, perhaps it would be a good time to re-read some policy pages:
WP:RS,
WP:COI,
WP:OWN, and last summer's
community discussion of paid editing. The {{
review}}
and {{
uw-tdel1}}
templates might be a good idea as well.
Dori ❦ (
Talk ❖
Contribs ❖
Review) ❦ 03:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
{{
review}}
) which could be fixed, but there are no sources that cover this brand-new application.
Dori ❦ (
Talk ❖
Contribs ❖
Review) ❦ 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete for both articles. Obvious consensus to delete Computhink, and only a "weak" keep vote for the software product with two other editors argue the sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable business that provides Electronic Content Management (ECM) / Document Management solutions for secure information sharing and compliance. Already proposed for deletion (not by me) and contested. Google News finds a fair number of hits: but I see nothing more than press releases, routine announcements of personnel changes, or litigation documents. Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Also nominating the following page for a software product of this business:
That article's references are all to a single online publication, a Business Solutions magazine online, which does not sound like it represents the sort of broad readership needed to sustain an article on a commercial product. Google News results for the product are also not particularly helpful, either.
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No assertion of notability or reliable sources to support it. Nouse4aname ( talk) 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable entertainer. Does not meet WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC or WP:ENT requirements. Warrah ( talk) 20:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep valid disambig page. I merged Drowning (disambiguation) to this page as they are really the same word and I see no point of both disambig pages. ( WP:NAC) CTJF83 chat 08:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Is this disambiguation page really necesary? RadManCF ( talk) 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close in accordance with WP:BEBOLD. Nominator blanked the page minutes before listing here. Article has existed as a redirect for 3 months. I will AGF on the nominator's part, restore the redirect, and relist at RfD shortly. Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-existent British Rail class of diesel multiple unit. Also this article is orphaned. Sunil060902 ( talk) 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Article is still being repaired, but foreign-language sources are improving. Notability seems established by links to movies it has been used in. Not completely promotional at the moment. Needs more work. closing as No Consensus to Delete ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Promotion for non-notable software product, article by single-purpose user with possible conflict of interest. I have been unable to find any significant coverage, and the article gives none. Haakon ( talk) 18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
keep - At the moment, all the articles about Cerebro so far only in Russian, i added more articles (three short of them in English) in the links section, give us a little time and we will have articles and reviews in English. Number of users (working under movies w/ VFX) that used Cerebro - already large enough! I also would like to actively participate in wikipedia life to add and edit all stuff about other software for VFX and CG.-- Khar khar ( talk) 19:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — Khar khar ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Related to this AfD. I can't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that this film is notable. The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every other film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sources have shown the person is notable. ( Non-admin closure) Intelligent sium 22:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Although this KKK leader and convicted criminal has several media references, etc., this seems like a WP:BLP1E of a person who is not, in the end, encyclopedically notable. Glenfarclas ( talk) 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete This article is a cut and paste from its source. Bonewah ( talk) 20:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This page mentions two regions that do not exist in the Geography of Albania, but they do exist in the minds of the macedo-bulgarian nationalists. These maps are invented by dubious wikipedians and include Korce and Pogradec as places with Bulgarian and Macedonian minorities. The official census of macedonian minorities is 5K. That's it. This area includes populations of more than $200k. In addition this page will entail the creation of the page of Albanian Territories in the Republic of Macedonia, which the macedonians (and albanians) should avoid -- Sulmues ( Talk) --Sulmues 20:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Related to this AfD. I can't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that this film is notable. The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every other film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested Prod, non-notable band. Ridernyc ( talk) 17:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Created and maintained by Sdvittorio ( talk · contribs) who is suspected to be the subject, probable self-promotional article by non-notable musician. Italian article has already been deleted for this very reason. Jubilee♫ clipman 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. This article was under an edit war by the nominator and User:2005. The Deletion process has NOT been followed, as the article hasnt been tagged for clean up or expansion. ( non-admin closure) Dusti SPEAK!! 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable person. Has not had a significant cash in more than 7 years, prior to the start of the poker boom. Once un-sourced material was removed, article contains next to nothing about him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DegenFarang ( talk • contribs)
The result was Procedural Keep. No rationale for deletion is offered. The presence, or lack, of a category is not itself a policy-based rationale for deletion, as per our Deletion Policy. The AFD process, at present, differs from other processes (such as Templates for Discussion), in that it isn't a forum for non-specific discussion about the subject article; an AFD is very specifically a request to delete a particular article for a particular violation of our policies. There is no such request here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
There is no Category:Shades of magenta to go with this list. Georgia guy ( talk) 17:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah ( talk) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Some serious WP:BLP issues here. WP:N requires non-trivial mentions in independent, third-party, reliable sources in order to establish notability, and you won't find that for Stanley Lucas because, according to members of the Gerontology Research Group, he has tried to remain anonymous. First, let's look at the sources:
Only one of these sources actually covers the subject of this article; the other three are just a collection of the times his name has been mentioned over the past five years. Stanley Lucas has not tried to gain attention in the press and has does nothing of note except live longer than any other man in Britain. As a marginally (if at all) notable individual, there's no need for him to have his own article as WP:BLP tells us to respect the privacy of semi-notable figures, and even if we were to completely disregard WP:BLP, there's still not enough sourcing to meet the threshold anyways Cheers, CP 17:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Cheers, CP 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep Being the oldest man in Europe is highly notable. If he is anonymous, then why was there a lengthy and detailed article about him in a reliable publication? References do not necessarily have to come from online sources, and it's certainly no ground for a deletion of an article. "One local source on an individual, however, does not in any way confer notability." - You might want to check WP:N before re-writing the rule book. It states that "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources". SiameseTurtle ( talk) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
If stanley lucas was anonymous we would know nothing about him, and there would be no sources about him, the fact that there is coverage about him shows that hes not anonymous.
Longevitydude (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 20:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
reply
a report on his 110th birthday, with a picture
http://www.bude-today.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=1880&headline=Celebrations%20in%20Bude%20as%20Stanley%20reaches%20110
does this look anonymous to you, could this happen if he was not getting media attention? Longevitydude ( talk) 13:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The comment that was quoted above was made (in a non-public forum) at a time when we were not sure if anything about Stanley had been in the media previously. The family were initially cautious about giving out any details so we moved slowly in accordance with this. Since that time a media story has appeared in the Bude and Stratton Post and he received many visitors over the past week. He never actively sought anonymity. Stanley is the oldest man in the UK, the oldest man in Europe and the third oldest known man in the world. Notable? I don't know - I don't have a detailed knowledge of your notability guidelines. -- Mattpagezk ( talk) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Adding rationale, per DRV: Both sides generally made arguments they felt were policy-based, and on the raw count the !votes were 10 delete, 16 keep, and 1 "keep and merge". Summarizing them, the "deletes" felt that the sources were not nearly in-depth or detailed enough regarding the site to establish notability, while the "keeps" felt that mentions in reliable sources (perhaps combined with a large number of ghits) were sufficient to establish notability. The sourcing looked a little thin to me as well, but this is obviously, at least to some extent, a matter of opinion, and people of good will can disagree on these matters. Those arguing to keep were generally well-established editors, many with tens of thousands of edits (or in one case over 120,000 edits) to their credit - not WP:SPA accounts with little familiarity with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, and interest in only one article. I felt that I had to respect the consensus of that preponderance of editors, and their considered judgment in the matter. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources to establish notability. Only self-published and other unreliable sources. No mainstream or widely-known sources. Seregain ( talk) 16:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep - Based on Seregain (an evangelical Christian)'s contributions, I doubt that this AFD was made in good faith and is likely an attempt to censor views that he finds offensive (and his posts in this AFD further enhance my opinion).
For the record, his 1st edit on Wikipedia was an AFD for Secular Student Alliance, and immediately after starting the AFD, he removed a reference to the SSA from Ken Ham using a deceptive edit summary. These are just a few of his disruptive edits, mind you. I have a thread on WP:AN/I that I would be happy to share. Thanks.-- SuaveArt ( talk) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
*Delete – Per comments above. No evidence of notability.
Hellbus (
talk) 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comment - It has now been learned that Seregain and American Eagle (and possibly other evangelical voters) have attempted to stack this AFD with 'delete' votes. This was also done recently during an AFD on Tracy Goode (which was flooded by evangelical spammers), so I ask that administrators keep this in mind. I have notified administrators of this disruption and will leave it at that.
In addition, this comment by American Eagle conflicts with his vote above (ex. "Tracy Goode should've been kept, and the skeptic Bible shouldn't be."). This furthers my suspicions about bad faith POV and the involvement in the vote flooding in the AFD for Tracy Goode.-- SuaveArt ( talk) 08:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The article lacks the notability to merit its own article and fails to be encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of ideas that have never came to fruition. Despite a proposed merger, I would still question its inclusion within the main Metallica article. Kerαunoςcopia◁ talk 15:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Can't find any significant coverage for this individual or his company. While the tone of the article is more or less acceptable, it still has a promotional tint and it was clearly written by Mr Finch himself. For the same reasons, the user page User:Refinch should also be deleted. Pichpich ( talk) 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nominator, and clear consensus to keep. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 15:32, 25 January 2010 (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}} . |
"Lack of third party citations or notability I refer to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/This_WEEK_in_FUN for precedent on this kind of thing andyzweb ( talk) 15:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrlow ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete, per lack of notability. To the creator of the article, recreation would be a possibility if you can find reliable secondary sources that establish the notability of Ms. Wilson. An article on "Big Writing" is also a possibility, though there again you would have to demonstrate notability via coverage in third party sources, and the point below that "Wikipedia is not a webhost" is something to keep in mind. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non- notable person. Assertion of notability relates to founding the "Big Writing" technique, but this technique is not itself notable. No significant news or web results found. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Nothing has been hidden or done surrepticiously, but honestly and ethically. Delete if you wish. Used Pie Corbett's wiki page as an example because it was cited in an email to us asking for a page on ros. Hardly a promotional tone, but that is your opinion. ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC). reply
This is the first article I have tried to submit, in response to requests from teachers around the UK. I appreciate any help advice with regard to making less promotional, as I felt it was simply statement of fact. As for a conflict of interest, I could understand if anything contentious, but I could submit the same information from a diferent email account surrepticiously and there would be no question. So why is there a problem now?( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC). Video of work at Leeds Met. [54] ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC). reply
Would it help if I were to include a number of external references here or on the proposed page, from primary schools, other councils etc?( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC). This page was intended to be the first of several pages in response to requests from teahcers to offer definitions and descriptions of those elements that Ros Wilson includes in her strategies, such as The Punctuation Pyramid, V.C.O.P., "Big Writing", "WOW Words", "Power Writing" etc. Though there are descriptions in the forums of The TES (Times Education Supplement), the Andrell Education website, OFSTED Reports citing the techniques as succeeding in schools, some people do search Google, Wiki etc and there are no definitive listings. The logical location in my mind is Wiki. This isn't about promotion validation or anything, simply clarification."> AndrellEd —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC). reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
A non-notable CAD package. Wizard191 ( talk) 14:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Clearly not a consensus to delete here, and additional sources provided by Cunard pushed the consensus closer to an outright keep. However there is arguably still some validity to the WP:NOTNEWS argument, and a merge was another possibility discussed, so "no consensus" seems to be the correct close. Editors interested in a possible merge should discuss it on the article talk page. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Notability for inclusion into a encyclopaedia of this dog/company/product is questionable. NJA (t/ c) 13:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Argument against a redirect is convincing, though no prejudice against creating one if an article on the league is ever created. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non- notable sports team. Competitive in a local amateur league, which is part of the Manitoba Amateur Hockey Association. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Chipmunk discography. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:NALBUMS states "mixtapes are in general not notable". Nothing indicates that this is an exception. Author contested redir to artist article. I42 ( talk) 12:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Chipmunk discography, not covered in any independent sources, does not meet WP:ALBUMS or WP:GNG. J04n( talk page) 13:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Epic duel is a new multi-player MMORPG game released on December 5, 2009. In my opinion, the game doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The article itself is quite a mess and contains a lot of in-universe information. There are no references in the article either. Only two outbound links to the game's website, and the game's own MediaWiki. Phynicen "Chat" 12:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Article is unverifiable. This situation is unlikely to change as the subject does not appear to be discussed in reliable sources, hence the subject also fails notability. Jakew ( talk) 11:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Draw by agreement#Different scoring systems. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Seldomly used scoring system in chess, very little independent coverage, and what I can find are blogs, or brief mentions during interviews with Clint Ballard, the system's inventor (and the initial contributor to the article). The fact that no high-level international tournaments have used it indicates that it remains a very obscure way of discouraging draws (compared, for example, to Sofia rules which doesn't have an article despite being used in several top-level tournaments). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I removed the {{ db-person}} tag because notability is asserted. However, I have been unable to find any coverage in reliable sources about this individual. A Google News Archive search returns no results. This article appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard ( talk) 09:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Games apparently canceled: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/islamic-solidarity-games-cancelled — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. I still disagree, but the consensus is clear. ( non-admin closure) Pcap ping 04:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO as the wife of Edwin Arnold. Pcap ping 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Banked by author. Discussion here indicates that it is unlikely to become an encyclopedic list. Tikiwont ( talk) 09:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
It's an indiscriminate list ~DC Talk To Me 06:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
no sources, fails WP:CRYSTAL. ~DC Talk To Me 06:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
non-notable band, couldn't find any sources ~DC Talk To Me 06:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to David Bowie. If the creator continues to revert the redirect, some disciplinary action is probably necessary here. ( X! · talk) · @915 · 20:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The entire text of this article is "David Bowie's first band." That information is already in the David Bowie article. I keep trying to redirect, and keep getting reverted without explanation. NawlinWiki ( talk) 04:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I created this page and in my opinion I don't believe this page, charting a milestone point of David Bowie's career should simply be deleted. Pictures of him in this band can be sourced from http://www.bowiewonderworld.com/tours/tour58.htm
If The Quarrymen (early incarnation of the beatles) is referenced and has it's own page on Wikipedia then surely Bowie's equivalent should be as well. There are also official recordings from this band on Davie Bowie boxed sets. Vox Teardrop I intend to list a discography and a color picture at some point in the near future. Vox Teardrop
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person Mayuresh 03:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 02:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, simply being a news anchor does not mean automatic notability. no in depth coverage [66]. LibStar ( talk) 03:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
PROD'ed for notability, but had already been deleted once via PROD. I agree it fails WP:NALBUMS Jclemens ( talk) 02:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Michelle Obama. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Michelle Obama's great-great-great grandmother. Not notable. — Chowbok ☠ 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Waiting for people to die doesn't seem right. The now-empty list seems to run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Warrah ( talk) 00:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Change to list of veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2006-2010 65.0.53.189 ( talk) 18:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
or better yet, make it list of veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2000-2010 do the math and you would only find 70 deaths. 65.0.53.189 ( talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
xpackane1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).xpackane2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).< 17 January | 19 January > |
---|
The result was Withdrawing nomination she actually meets WP:MUSIC. LibStar ( talk) 02:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. hardly anything in gnews which is a bit surprising since the article claims she has performed in some English speaking countries. would reconsider if someone searches in Armenian or Russian but no article exists for her in these langauges. LibStar ( talk) 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. No rationale has been given for deletion and no one other than the nominator has suggested deletion. ( non-admin closure) Blodance the Seeker 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Subject is not notable apart from her illness and her parents, the article is actually more about her parents, suggest a merge or a redirect to either the parents or the illness or the medical center her parents have opened. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
before nominating this article I noted that
User:Upsala did a phenomenal job reviewing the citations for accuracy and tagging the text where questions still exist. The article has significant violations of
WP:COI that make it difficult to wade through; in addition, most of the sources are in Portuguese, complicating matters. I removed the most detailed citation in English, which was to a past version of the subject's Wikipedia userpage. He may indeed be notable in Portuguese, but based on my review and Upsala's work I can find no evidence of sufficient notability for inclusion in the English Wikipedia.
otherl
left 17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
Answer - Web of Science lists 33 articles authored or coauthored by Sabbatini as being cited at least once. (Most of the "Selected Publications" S. listed in the WP article have never been cited, according to both W. of S. and Google Scholar.) Of these 33, 22 have been cited exactly once (in some cases, by S himself), 6 were cited 2-3 times, and the rest were cited 7, 10, 24, 28, and 28 times. On none of these 5 was S the sole or even lead author. (In fact with a sigle exception every paper, on which S was the sole or lead author, has been cited exactly zero or one time; the exception: 3 times.)
As to "Champions" and popular-science writing award, these don't come anywhere near the guidelines of WP:PROF: "...major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc, always qualify [or] lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige [such as] certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize, etc." "Receipt of an award" and "inclusion in a list" don't pass muster. Upsala ( talk) 04:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Well, I'm not a big fan of cold metrics in isolation, but it's obvious that no one has taken enough notice of anything Sabbatini's done to write about it. This doesn't mean he hasn't done interesting and useful things. He has. But they're not notable if no one's noted them. Actually, things are even worse than my summary above suggests: on one of the two papers with 28 cites, S. was one of a dozen coauthors! Upsala ( talk) 19:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Since I am the person under scrutiny, I will not manifest myself over keeping or not this article. I have tried to contribute to Wikipedia because I believed in the concept. Now I know that what is notoriety for Wikipedia can be better illustrated by obscure football players, videogame characters or, more interestingly, a List of pornographic actresses by decade.
I will now retire as a contributing editor to Wikipedia, with more than 150 articles started by me.
Do what you want regarding the article, there are hundreds of copies of it in Wikipedia copycats.
Upsala, who started all this, shows a worrying feature of Wikipedia, which is that unknown, anonymous contributors like him, have more credibility than an indentified, bona-fine, author. He has systematically and obsessively destroyed a lot of my contributions to Wikipedia, which makes me think whether he is some personal enemy of mine. The universal nature of English Wikipedia is threatened by arguments like the above, that I am a native of a Portuguese-speaking country. If a person who has hundreds of published articles in Portuguese and several books in this language, and whose credentials cannot be verified just because they are in Portuguese, then we cannot expect much about Wikipedia'a vaunted neutral and unbiased stand. In regard to notoriety, this is a more serious issue. If a person who has been (properly docomented) a founder, president, vice-president, secretary and director of informatics and director of education of three large national learned societies, including the Brazilian Medical Association (140,000 members) received awards and nominations who put him among the 50 best known authors and scientists in the country, then you all should revise what constitutes notoriety. Now I understand the reason why 99,9% of Brazilian scientists I have contacted to propose a systematic list of biographies in Wikipedia have refused: they think that it is not serious, academically speaking, and that they don't give a damn if they are listed or not.
I am now moving to be an author of Medpedia, which is supported by Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Californa at Berkeley and Wisconsin University, and which forbids ignorant non-entities, anonymous contributors, like Upsala to write anything, and which recognizes and shows the leadind editors to each article. Lost my time here. R.Sabbatini ( talk) 16:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
You all may notice by the list of Upsala contributions that he entered Wikipedia as an anonymous contributor on January 3rd 2010 exclusively to target the destruction and smearing of Dr. Sabbatini's valuable contributions to Wikipedia. He asked for a reference every two or three words of the bio article, which is patently an exaggeration, otherwise 90% of all bios in Wikipedia would have to be deleted. Upsala's only goal seems to be to delete Dr. Sabbatini' biography and as many as his contributions as possible. I suggest that a more responsible editor restores the entire article, deleting only obvious self-propaganda, and block User Upsala. The Philosopher of Sao Paulo ( talk) 04:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Note: An editor appears to have inadvertantly reopened this debate. I'm reverting to the close and advising them to start another AFD if they wish. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to "keep" Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance – mostly brief notices of his running from office. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb ( talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
For normal candidates I'd normally agree. But the notoriety of Hastert's last name has garnered national media attention to this race and I think it warrants remaining on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titomuerte ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pre-K program. Declined the speedy because the article is technically about a school, but irregardless this has no place on Wikipedia. 2 says you, says two 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Nomination on behalf of IP 98.248.32.44 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), who completed steps 1 and 3 of the AfD process and left the following note on the talk page: "Fails notability criteria - has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. 98.248.32.44 ( talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)" reply
I am neutral and only listing this in good faith on behalf of the IP user who followed the instructions in the {{
afd1}}
template. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge to Amyraldism. Tone 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This was a term coined by Norman Geisler, but the article has confused it with the "Four point Calvinism", or Amyraldianism. Geisler's views properly belong in the article about him. StAnselm ( talk) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. WP:CRYSTAL issue or !vote has been countered and does not apply. ( non-admin closure) Dusti SPEAK!! 16:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non- notable film. Despite the notability of its cast and its subject matter, no reliable results can be found for the existence of this film. Several rumors seem to have floated around the internet regarding its existence, but even the IMDB entry seems hinky, with an "official site" that links to an anonymous IP address rather than a named domain. Prod denied by author. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem notable enough for its own article (the other Microsoft Ribbons don't have their own article), merge to Ribbon (computing) possibly. fetch comms ☛ 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep; non-admin closure. Regard this as a unanimous keep after the article was expanded during the deletion discussion and referenced with reliable sources. Mkativerata ( talk) 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete this unreleased film. The notability of which has yet to be determined, if it ever comes out. JBsupreme ( talk) 21:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Icewedge ( talk) 04:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. I see some press releases and mentions on a few university websites, but I do not see any significant coverage of this day being observed by any kind of reliable third party publications. [18] JBsupreme ( talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The protest is a historical event more than a current one. So unsuprisingly, those organizations that still carry it on are the only ones to report it. At the time there certainly were many references in third party publications. Of course, this was before the internet, and it was a news event.
It seems better to keep the article and provide some such sources if they're needed. For example, this [ May 7 1981 discussion in the Cornell Daily Sun]. This paper has a 'history' column that mentions the protest [ Outrider vol 13] I'm afraid I don't have a stack of college papers from the mid 1980's available at the moment, but I suppose I could go find some.
I believe this meets the criteria of 'Significant Coverage' (it's the focus of the article in many cases) 'Reliable' (commercial publishers) secondary sources (the book mention, for instance) 'independent of the subject' (it's easy to find negative references, and certainly the scholarly references should count)
The page is linked (to Gay_rights_in_the_United_States).
The protest was important enough that the LGBT Historical Archive in San Francisco included several flyers for it in a public display of artifacts of the LGBT rights movement.
The protest is mentioned in 8 different books in the Google books collection, for example Wolf, Michelle (1991). Gay People, Sex, Media. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press. p. 248.
ISBN
0-918393-77-9. {{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Finally, we should look at the 'would this be in a paper encyclopedia?', to which I have to answer yes. The article seems like something a student or researcher of LGBT history would find useful.
I admit the article has problems. It seems a better use of editor's energy to improve the article than to delete it.
20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniepoo ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable recording artist. Ridernyc ( talk) 21:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable compilation. Kekkomereq4 ( talk) 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable tag team. They have not done anything notable (at least yet), they have only teamed together twice in fact. They could possibly become notable in the future, but I don't think they are yet. TJ Spyke 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete Absoulutly nothing notable about these 2 except they #1 contenders to the Unified Tag Team Championship which like Jeri-Show (who actually won the titles) doesn't qualify them as notable.-- C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Add-on I can actually name a lot of teams that won tag titles (or at least were a contender to them) that don't have there own pages. 1. CM Punk and Kofi Kingston 2. Rey Mysterio and Batista 3. Jeri-Show 4. Batista and John Cena 5. John Cena and Shawn Michaels 6. MVP and Mark Henry etc. must I go on. Thoses teams are just like these 2 un-notable besides winning or qualifying for tag titles.-- C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Exactly why should we have a page for a team that hasn't won the titles when we don't even have pages for teams who have won the titles.-- C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 23:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I know that they didn't win the titles for 12 years what I mean is those teams I listed they are un-notable as they didn't do anything also I think all of those teams except John Cena and Shawn Michaels were deleted through AfD which is your point I think anyway. Also DX they were actually noteable they actually did things that would catch people's eyes this team all they have done is shave people's head and are #1 contenders to the titles.-- C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Yah heres it from the page:
So your DX argument is irrelevant. FYI i'm adding a reference section so you know i'm not lying.-- C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Crackpot theory claims to overturn the Standard Model, replacing the quark description of the proton by claiming it is actually a black hole with no internal structure. The sum total of supporting citation for this article is a single reference to an obscure "award" from a "Computing Anticipatory Systems" (not peer reviewed by physicists). CosineKitty ( talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No strong argument for keeping, and the delete arguments include concerns about notability, WP:CRYSTAL, and indeed verifiability given some of the conflicting information. No prejudice against recreation if the film is released in some fashion and more info becomes available. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Unable to find multiple third party reliable sources that confirm this film meets WP:NF or even WP:GNG. I was able to find an IMDb entry for Ullam but the information in IMDb differs greatly from what is described in the article, creating doubt that this is the same film. This reference provided is from a 2008 article and the soundtrack was supposedly released in 2004; the film in the IMDb link is claimed to have been released in 2005. I'm not sure if several films are being mistaken for one another or if this film is one of those films in perennial production that is having a hard time getting wrapped up but I don't think it qualifies for its own article at this time. I'll gladly withdraw my nomination if proper sources can be found to show notability. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
SitNGo Wizard is written like an advertisement, even though I have removed several peacock term filled sentences. It also has questionable notability as it is an obscure software product applicable to only one form of poker, and has been written entirely by one editor... DegenFarang ( talk) 17:27, 18 January 2010 (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}} . |
If any of the "refs" had been to solid reputable sites, I would have left them.
If you haven't seen spam removed since 2007, perhaps it would be a good time to re-read some policy pages:
WP:RS,
WP:COI,
WP:OWN, and last summer's
community discussion of paid editing. The {{
review}}
and {{
uw-tdel1}}
templates might be a good idea as well.
Dori ❦ (
Talk ❖
Contribs ❖
Review) ❦ 03:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
{{
review}}
) which could be fixed, but there are no sources that cover this brand-new application.
Dori ❦ (
Talk ❖
Contribs ❖
Review) ❦ 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete for both articles. Obvious consensus to delete Computhink, and only a "weak" keep vote for the software product with two other editors argue the sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable business that provides Electronic Content Management (ECM) / Document Management solutions for secure information sharing and compliance. Already proposed for deletion (not by me) and contested. Google News finds a fair number of hits: but I see nothing more than press releases, routine announcements of personnel changes, or litigation documents. Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Also nominating the following page for a software product of this business:
That article's references are all to a single online publication, a Business Solutions magazine online, which does not sound like it represents the sort of broad readership needed to sustain an article on a commercial product. Google News results for the product are also not particularly helpful, either.
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No assertion of notability or reliable sources to support it. Nouse4aname ( talk) 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable entertainer. Does not meet WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC or WP:ENT requirements. Warrah ( talk) 20:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep valid disambig page. I merged Drowning (disambiguation) to this page as they are really the same word and I see no point of both disambig pages. ( WP:NAC) CTJF83 chat 08:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Is this disambiguation page really necesary? RadManCF ( talk) 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close in accordance with WP:BEBOLD. Nominator blanked the page minutes before listing here. Article has existed as a redirect for 3 months. I will AGF on the nominator's part, restore the redirect, and relist at RfD shortly. Non-admin closure. — KuyaBriBri Talk 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-existent British Rail class of diesel multiple unit. Also this article is orphaned. Sunil060902 ( talk) 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Article is still being repaired, but foreign-language sources are improving. Notability seems established by links to movies it has been used in. Not completely promotional at the moment. Needs more work. closing as No Consensus to Delete ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Promotion for non-notable software product, article by single-purpose user with possible conflict of interest. I have been unable to find any significant coverage, and the article gives none. Haakon ( talk) 18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
keep - At the moment, all the articles about Cerebro so far only in Russian, i added more articles (three short of them in English) in the links section, give us a little time and we will have articles and reviews in English. Number of users (working under movies w/ VFX) that used Cerebro - already large enough! I also would like to actively participate in wikipedia life to add and edit all stuff about other software for VFX and CG.-- Khar khar ( talk) 19:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — Khar khar ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Related to this AfD. I can't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that this film is notable. The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every other film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sources have shown the person is notable. ( Non-admin closure) Intelligent sium 22:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Although this KKK leader and convicted criminal has several media references, etc., this seems like a WP:BLP1E of a person who is not, in the end, encyclopedically notable. Glenfarclas ( talk) 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete This article is a cut and paste from its source. Bonewah ( talk) 20:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
This page mentions two regions that do not exist in the Geography of Albania, but they do exist in the minds of the macedo-bulgarian nationalists. These maps are invented by dubious wikipedians and include Korce and Pogradec as places with Bulgarian and Macedonian minorities. The official census of macedonian minorities is 5K. That's it. This area includes populations of more than $200k. In addition this page will entail the creation of the page of Albanian Territories in the Republic of Macedonia, which the macedonians (and albanians) should avoid -- Sulmues ( Talk) --Sulmues 20:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Related to this AfD. I can't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that this film is notable. The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every other film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested Prod, non-notable band. Ridernyc ( talk) 17:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Created and maintained by Sdvittorio ( talk · contribs) who is suspected to be the subject, probable self-promotional article by non-notable musician. Italian article has already been deleted for this very reason. Jubilee♫ clipman 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. This article was under an edit war by the nominator and User:2005. The Deletion process has NOT been followed, as the article hasnt been tagged for clean up or expansion. ( non-admin closure) Dusti SPEAK!! 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non notable person. Has not had a significant cash in more than 7 years, prior to the start of the poker boom. Once un-sourced material was removed, article contains next to nothing about him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DegenFarang ( talk • contribs)
The result was Procedural Keep. No rationale for deletion is offered. The presence, or lack, of a category is not itself a policy-based rationale for deletion, as per our Deletion Policy. The AFD process, at present, differs from other processes (such as Templates for Discussion), in that it isn't a forum for non-specific discussion about the subject article; an AFD is very specifically a request to delete a particular article for a particular violation of our policies. There is no such request here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
There is no Category:Shades of magenta to go with this list. Georgia guy ( talk) 17:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah ( talk) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Some serious WP:BLP issues here. WP:N requires non-trivial mentions in independent, third-party, reliable sources in order to establish notability, and you won't find that for Stanley Lucas because, according to members of the Gerontology Research Group, he has tried to remain anonymous. First, let's look at the sources:
Only one of these sources actually covers the subject of this article; the other three are just a collection of the times his name has been mentioned over the past five years. Stanley Lucas has not tried to gain attention in the press and has does nothing of note except live longer than any other man in Britain. As a marginally (if at all) notable individual, there's no need for him to have his own article as WP:BLP tells us to respect the privacy of semi-notable figures, and even if we were to completely disregard WP:BLP, there's still not enough sourcing to meet the threshold anyways Cheers, CP 17:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Cheers, CP 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep Being the oldest man in Europe is highly notable. If he is anonymous, then why was there a lengthy and detailed article about him in a reliable publication? References do not necessarily have to come from online sources, and it's certainly no ground for a deletion of an article. "One local source on an individual, however, does not in any way confer notability." - You might want to check WP:N before re-writing the rule book. It states that "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources". SiameseTurtle ( talk) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
If stanley lucas was anonymous we would know nothing about him, and there would be no sources about him, the fact that there is coverage about him shows that hes not anonymous.
Longevitydude (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 20:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
reply
a report on his 110th birthday, with a picture
http://www.bude-today.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=1880&headline=Celebrations%20in%20Bude%20as%20Stanley%20reaches%20110
does this look anonymous to you, could this happen if he was not getting media attention? Longevitydude ( talk) 13:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The comment that was quoted above was made (in a non-public forum) at a time when we were not sure if anything about Stanley had been in the media previously. The family were initially cautious about giving out any details so we moved slowly in accordance with this. Since that time a media story has appeared in the Bude and Stratton Post and he received many visitors over the past week. He never actively sought anonymity. Stanley is the oldest man in the UK, the oldest man in Europe and the third oldest known man in the world. Notable? I don't know - I don't have a detailed knowledge of your notability guidelines. -- Mattpagezk ( talk) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Adding rationale, per DRV: Both sides generally made arguments they felt were policy-based, and on the raw count the !votes were 10 delete, 16 keep, and 1 "keep and merge". Summarizing them, the "deletes" felt that the sources were not nearly in-depth or detailed enough regarding the site to establish notability, while the "keeps" felt that mentions in reliable sources (perhaps combined with a large number of ghits) were sufficient to establish notability. The sourcing looked a little thin to me as well, but this is obviously, at least to some extent, a matter of opinion, and people of good will can disagree on these matters. Those arguing to keep were generally well-established editors, many with tens of thousands of edits (or in one case over 120,000 edits) to their credit - not WP:SPA accounts with little familiarity with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, and interest in only one article. I felt that I had to respect the consensus of that preponderance of editors, and their considered judgment in the matter. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources to establish notability. Only self-published and other unreliable sources. No mainstream or widely-known sources. Seregain ( talk) 16:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep - Based on Seregain (an evangelical Christian)'s contributions, I doubt that this AFD was made in good faith and is likely an attempt to censor views that he finds offensive (and his posts in this AFD further enhance my opinion).
For the record, his 1st edit on Wikipedia was an AFD for Secular Student Alliance, and immediately after starting the AFD, he removed a reference to the SSA from Ken Ham using a deceptive edit summary. These are just a few of his disruptive edits, mind you. I have a thread on WP:AN/I that I would be happy to share. Thanks.-- SuaveArt ( talk) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
*Delete – Per comments above. No evidence of notability.
Hellbus (
talk) 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
reply
Comment - It has now been learned that Seregain and American Eagle (and possibly other evangelical voters) have attempted to stack this AFD with 'delete' votes. This was also done recently during an AFD on Tracy Goode (which was flooded by evangelical spammers), so I ask that administrators keep this in mind. I have notified administrators of this disruption and will leave it at that.
In addition, this comment by American Eagle conflicts with his vote above (ex. "Tracy Goode should've been kept, and the skeptic Bible shouldn't be."). This furthers my suspicions about bad faith POV and the involvement in the vote flooding in the AFD for Tracy Goode.-- SuaveArt ( talk) 08:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The article lacks the notability to merit its own article and fails to be encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of ideas that have never came to fruition. Despite a proposed merger, I would still question its inclusion within the main Metallica article. Kerαunoςcopia◁ talk 15:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Can't find any significant coverage for this individual or his company. While the tone of the article is more or less acceptable, it still has a promotional tint and it was clearly written by Mr Finch himself. For the same reasons, the user page User:Refinch should also be deleted. Pichpich ( talk) 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nominator, and clear consensus to keep. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 15:32, 25 January 2010 (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}} . |
"Lack of third party citations or notability I refer to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/This_WEEK_in_FUN for precedent on this kind of thing andyzweb ( talk) 15:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrlow ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete, per lack of notability. To the creator of the article, recreation would be a possibility if you can find reliable secondary sources that establish the notability of Ms. Wilson. An article on "Big Writing" is also a possibility, though there again you would have to demonstrate notability via coverage in third party sources, and the point below that "Wikipedia is not a webhost" is something to keep in mind. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non- notable person. Assertion of notability relates to founding the "Big Writing" technique, but this technique is not itself notable. No significant news or web results found. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Nothing has been hidden or done surrepticiously, but honestly and ethically. Delete if you wish. Used Pie Corbett's wiki page as an example because it was cited in an email to us asking for a page on ros. Hardly a promotional tone, but that is your opinion. ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC). reply
This is the first article I have tried to submit, in response to requests from teachers around the UK. I appreciate any help advice with regard to making less promotional, as I felt it was simply statement of fact. As for a conflict of interest, I could understand if anything contentious, but I could submit the same information from a diferent email account surrepticiously and there would be no question. So why is there a problem now?( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC). Video of work at Leeds Met. [54] ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC). reply
Would it help if I were to include a number of external references here or on the proposed page, from primary schools, other councils etc?( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC). This page was intended to be the first of several pages in response to requests from teahcers to offer definitions and descriptions of those elements that Ros Wilson includes in her strategies, such as The Punctuation Pyramid, V.C.O.P., "Big Writing", "WOW Words", "Power Writing" etc. Though there are descriptions in the forums of The TES (Times Education Supplement), the Andrell Education website, OFSTED Reports citing the techniques as succeeding in schools, some people do search Google, Wiki etc and there are no definitive listings. The logical location in my mind is Wiki. This isn't about promotion validation or anything, simply clarification."> AndrellEd —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC). reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
A non-notable CAD package. Wizard191 ( talk) 14:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Clearly not a consensus to delete here, and additional sources provided by Cunard pushed the consensus closer to an outright keep. However there is arguably still some validity to the WP:NOTNEWS argument, and a merge was another possibility discussed, so "no consensus" seems to be the correct close. Editors interested in a possible merge should discuss it on the article talk page. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Notability for inclusion into a encyclopaedia of this dog/company/product is questionable. NJA (t/ c) 13:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Argument against a redirect is convincing, though no prejudice against creating one if an article on the league is ever created. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non- notable sports team. Competitive in a local amateur league, which is part of the Manitoba Amateur Hockey Association. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Chipmunk discography. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:NALBUMS states "mixtapes are in general not notable". Nothing indicates that this is an exception. Author contested redir to artist article. I42 ( talk) 12:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Chipmunk discography, not covered in any independent sources, does not meet WP:ALBUMS or WP:GNG. J04n( talk page) 13:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Epic duel is a new multi-player MMORPG game released on December 5, 2009. In my opinion, the game doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The article itself is quite a mess and contains a lot of in-universe information. There are no references in the article either. Only two outbound links to the game's website, and the game's own MediaWiki. Phynicen "Chat" 12:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Article is unverifiable. This situation is unlikely to change as the subject does not appear to be discussed in reliable sources, hence the subject also fails notability. Jakew ( talk) 11:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Draw by agreement#Different scoring systems. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Seldomly used scoring system in chess, very little independent coverage, and what I can find are blogs, or brief mentions during interviews with Clint Ballard, the system's inventor (and the initial contributor to the article). The fact that no high-level international tournaments have used it indicates that it remains a very obscure way of discouraging draws (compared, for example, to Sofia rules which doesn't have an article despite being used in several top-level tournaments). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I removed the {{ db-person}} tag because notability is asserted. However, I have been unable to find any coverage in reliable sources about this individual. A Google News Archive search returns no results. This article appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard ( talk) 09:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Games apparently canceled: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/islamic-solidarity-games-cancelled — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. I still disagree, but the consensus is clear. ( non-admin closure) Pcap ping 04:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO as the wife of Edwin Arnold. Pcap ping 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Banked by author. Discussion here indicates that it is unlikely to become an encyclopedic list. Tikiwont ( talk) 09:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
It's an indiscriminate list ~DC Talk To Me 06:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
no sources, fails WP:CRYSTAL. ~DC Talk To Me 06:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
non-notable band, couldn't find any sources ~DC Talk To Me 06:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to David Bowie. If the creator continues to revert the redirect, some disciplinary action is probably necessary here. ( X! · talk) · @915 · 20:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The entire text of this article is "David Bowie's first band." That information is already in the David Bowie article. I keep trying to redirect, and keep getting reverted without explanation. NawlinWiki ( talk) 04:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
I created this page and in my opinion I don't believe this page, charting a milestone point of David Bowie's career should simply be deleted. Pictures of him in this band can be sourced from http://www.bowiewonderworld.com/tours/tour58.htm
If The Quarrymen (early incarnation of the beatles) is referenced and has it's own page on Wikipedia then surely Bowie's equivalent should be as well. There are also official recordings from this band on Davie Bowie boxed sets. Vox Teardrop I intend to list a discography and a color picture at some point in the near future. Vox Teardrop
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person Mayuresh 03:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. NW ( Talk) 02:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, simply being a news anchor does not mean automatic notability. no in depth coverage [66]. LibStar ( talk) 03:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
PROD'ed for notability, but had already been deleted once via PROD. I agree it fails WP:NALBUMS Jclemens ( talk) 02:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Michelle Obama. ( non-admin closure) Tim Song ( talk) 23:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Michelle Obama's great-great-great grandmother. Not notable. — Chowbok ☠ 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Waiting for people to die doesn't seem right. The now-empty list seems to run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Warrah ( talk) 00:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Change to list of veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2006-2010 65.0.53.189 ( talk) 18:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
or better yet, make it list of veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2000-2010 do the math and you would only find 70 deaths. 65.0.53.189 ( talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply
xpackane1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).xpackane2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).