- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted per WP:BLP . Docg 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Windmann[edit]
- Richard Windmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Insufficient proof of notability; one quote in one article does not make one notable ElKevbo (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The angle for notability would be through the first recorded international cyberbattle, but there's no sources to back that up. In the absence of that, there are no clear claims of notability backed up by reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Besides, if he's so good, let him hack into Wikipedia and stop his article from getting deleted. ;-] . --Brewcrewer (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Davewild 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of registered political parties in Spain[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- List of registered political parties in Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Is a list of mostly non-notable data, provides little context or other usable information. Mbisanz (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it does provide important information, which would be lost if deleted. Listing is not identical to the one of the ministry, it is a wikified list with english translations and wikilinks. Also, the time aspect of registrations is highly relevant, considering that these trends reflect various phases in Spain's transition to democracy. --Soman (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the page is very large, would you be opposed to splitting it into individual years or groups of years? One of my concerns is that with so many fields of data, users may have a hard time udnerstanding it all. Mbisanz (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand the problem of kilobytes. However, I would suggest having a look at User:Soman/temp, where all tables have been fused and sortable by date, name, province, etc.. --Soman (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have a problem listing all of these parties that ran in 1 election or maybe never ran. It just seems like WP:NOT#DIR and that this is a directory of ALL Spanish parties, not just the notable or active ones. Sorting to me doesn't really improve it, since then it could not be split into decade specific periods. That and I don't see how sorting by Party Name or City of Founding would result in that much more usability. Mbisanz (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand the problem of kilobytes. However, I would suggest having a look at User:Soman/temp, where all tables have been fused and sortable by date, name, province, etc.. --Soman (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the page is very large, would you be opposed to splitting it into individual years or groups of years? One of my concerns is that with so many fields of data, users may have a hard time udnerstanding it all. Mbisanz (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think that splitting it into decades would be a good idea, and perhaps the tabular information needs to be revised. There's always room for improvement in displaying data. It is important information showing the order in which parties were registered. I'm not sure that the city AND the province have to be included (one would work as well as both), nor a translation of the party name. Finally, the date can be shortened (all the parties in the 1980 table, for instance were registered on 1980-xx-xx). That would free up space for other info. Mandsford (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and improve. On its face, this is useful and notable information, involving as it does the political parties of a country. Hmains (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Perhaps it could use some tidying in its current form, but why should Wikipedia be without a list of Spanish political parties? AfD isn't cleanup. Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I don't see how this data fails WP:N. With all the redlinks and the extra info it meets WP:LIST criteria 1 and 3. Punkmorten (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia already has a separate article titled List of political parties in Spain which focuses on the parties that actually contest elections and are notable, as opposed to including any party which ever registered in the country. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an informative and appropriate list. RMHED (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Is it Snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Metropolitan90, or Merge with List of political parties in Spain. It sometimes happens that two lists are created which essentially cover the same material. If people feel that the list under discussion has some features which could be incorporated into List of political parties in Spain, such as putting in the dates of registration, then I'm sure that could be done. Otherwise I see no value having a duplicate list, other than that this one contains more parties which fail WP:N - bear in mind from WP:Bio: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." and that a political party is not by default notable (see Church of the Militant Elvis Party. Red linking a political party doesn't say anything about its potential for a future article. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect. Kubigula (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Camel discography[edit]
- Camel discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Completing unfinished nom by User:Hammer1980, it would seem that Twinkle screwed up... Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom Twinkle did seem to screw up. Nominated as it does not seem to warrent its own article. Could be merged into Camel (band) article. Hammer1980·talk 00:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - to Camel (band). The band article alredy contains a discogrpaphy section. And as the band is no longer active, there isn't going to be a large expansion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. And remember Wikipedia:Be bold in future. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
London Buses route E9[edit]
- London Buses route E9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
It does not assert the notability of the subject; I really don't think that bus routes are particularly notable. Neranei (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability is not a criteria for deletion; notability is asserted as part of a larger whole, in this case the bus network operated by Transport for London. This article, along with hundreds of others, constitutes an effective descriptive sub-article of List of bus routes in London, which would otherwise be overlarge and require splitting to be of use to the reader. Furthermore, the article links to adequate references for its purposes; broader sourcing exists in the primary articles concerning both TfL and the operator, in this case First London. Mackensen (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; in this case, all of them, even if that takes more AfDs. There's a dozen bus routes in Greater Lowell, each and every one of them just as notable, and every single metropolitan area is just the same.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Notability is not a criteria for deletion; although it may suggest a merge. It also strains credulity that the bus network of the Greater Lowell conurbation equates to that of Greater London, whose population exceeds seven million. It is also not common practice to use a single article, not necessarily representative, as a standard for deleting several hundred articles. The suggestion is not serious. Mackensen (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about WP:NOT#GUIDE? We're not talking about the bus network, we're talking about a bus route. Greater London has hundreds of bus routes serving seven million; Greater Lowell has 18 serving a quarter million, so each Lowell route serves more people than each London route. In any case, Greater Lowell is just one example; according to List of cities by population, London is the 16th largest city, and according to List of urban areas by population, it's the 25th. Assuming that for some reason London is the lower cut off point, and that the larger cities only have as many bus routes as London does (347 articles), do we really need five to eight thousand articles that consist of the list of times and places of bus stops?
- (As a side note, Greater Lowell is included in Wikipedia statistics with Boston, and Greater Boston's population is nearly 4.5 million. Why shouldn't Greater Boston's bus routes be included?)
- I will agree that this AfD is probably not justification for deleting the rest of the articles; but it should be the first, and the rest should follow in further AfDs or prods. All of this non-encyclopedic material should be swept into the Thames.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me how this material is non-encyclopedic; I'd appreciate clarification on this point. That Greater Boston's bus routes do or do not exist has no bearing on whether these articles exist; they must be considered on their own merits. I've given several justifications above as to why individual sub-articles better serve the reader then one or several massive omnibus articles. You ask whether we "need" these articles. We don't "need" anything; need has never been a criteria for anything. Our editors write according to their interests, in consideration of what our readers might like to read and governed by our own policies on content. This article in no way serves as a timetable; it does not correlate the overall journey time with individual stops, it merely notes the route taken (in one part of the article) and the service level maintained (in another part of the article). This is necessary and proper for article concerning a service; the use of templates suggests a standard approach taken in this and other articles. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not encyclopedic because it's not the type of thing encyclopedias do. These are ephemeral things that aren't written about in books or anything besides purely pragmatic guides for bus-riders. It's not encyclopedic because, as I point out above, to cover bus routes of large cities would take thousands of articles--if we included urban areas with merely a million people, we'd be in the tens of thousands of articles--which is an amount of space completely out of proportion to the general importance of the subject. I've been in research libraries with a million books, and they didn't have tens of thousands of books on bus routes. They're ephemeral; the articles provide no historical context, and state everything in the present, talking about things that could change on the whim of the bus company.
- No, I don't think it's necessary and proper for an article concerning a service. We do not mention every exit on every US Interstate. We don't cover ever-changing things in exhaustive detail.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. These questions of proportionality don't apply there. You're also wrong to state that these articles don't discuss historical context; I've seen several that detail a history going back to the 1960s. On the matter of this article, the lack of historical context is an individual failing, correctable and not systemic. It's also true that we don't mention every exit on a US interstate, but I question the relevance of that comparison. We do discuss every interstate itself, even though these are more routings than physical things, a road can be re-signed at any time. Mackensen (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me how this material is non-encyclopedic; I'd appreciate clarification on this point. That Greater Boston's bus routes do or do not exist has no bearing on whether these articles exist; they must be considered on their own merits. I've given several justifications above as to why individual sub-articles better serve the reader then one or several massive omnibus articles. You ask whether we "need" these articles. We don't "need" anything; need has never been a criteria for anything. Our editors write according to their interests, in consideration of what our readers might like to read and governed by our own policies on content. This article in no way serves as a timetable; it does not correlate the overall journey time with individual stops, it merely notes the route taken (in one part of the article) and the service level maintained (in another part of the article). This is necessary and proper for article concerning a service; the use of templates suggests a standard approach taken in this and other articles. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And WP:PAPER isn't a reason for keeping anything, there aren't any sources to indicate why this bus route is notable, thus Delete, I also agree with NE2 This is a Secret account 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea I agree with for a merge of all these bus routes as well This is a Secret account 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Notability is not a criteria for deletion; although it may suggest a merge. It also strains credulity that the bus network of the Greater Lowell conurbation equates to that of Greater London, whose population exceeds seven million. It is also not common practice to use a single article, not necessarily representative, as a standard for deleting several hundred articles. The suggestion is not serious. Mackensen (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, with only a few exceptions that haven't been done yet, we do list every exit on every Interstate. As for this article, it really needs history. If there's almost no history it might be better in a list like list of bus routes in Manhattan. --NE2 08:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Wikipedia may not be a paper encyclopedia, as has been pointed out above, but it still is, or should be, an encyclopedia. And no useful definition of an encyclopedia stretches to include information such as routes and timetables for public transport. Before anyone says "but this could be useful for some people", let me remind you guys that these days such information is easily, and much more reliably, available on the public transport companies' websites (in this case http://journeyplanner.tfl.gov.uk). If we start duplicating their information we may as well start copying phone directories into articles next. After all, some may find it useful, and this ain't paper... Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article, of course, contains no timetable (though it does like to said reliable timetable). Ab reductio absurdam is no reason delete, and it's not enough to state that "no useful definition of an encyclopedia" includes this, because you haven't stated what that definition is! Incidentally, welcome to Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so it doesn't contain a timetable, just a list of stops without times. Does that make it a more useful or legitimate in an encyclopedia? And of course I haven't stated what definitions of an encyclopedia don't allow for stuff like this, because none do. That's got nothing at all to do with a "reductio ad absurdum". Information of this type belongs in a travel wiki or a London wiki, but not in an encyclopedia, wiki or no wiki. As for your welcome message - thank you. I just hope it's not to imply that new users aren't entitled to an opinion. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article, of course, contains no timetable (though it does like to said reliable timetable). Ab reductio absurdam is no reason delete, and it's not enough to state that "no useful definition of an encyclopedia" includes this, because you haven't stated what that definition is! Incidentally, welcome to Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - wiki is not a guide. Absent other information, individual bus routes are not notable even if the transport system in which they operate is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article doesn't assert notability. In looking into this I noticed, as Mackensen points out, that we have many, many articles on bus routes. I also noticed that there have been previous AfD discussions on individual routes, as well as multiple routes. While it is clear that some individual articles - such as this one - are trivial, and not worth keeping, others do have potential (though could do with a bit of adequate sourcing to support what appears to be a lot of OR). Some routes might go in WikiTravel, though this one is too minor for even that. Considering the case before us, this article is trivial, unsourced, and has no potential for meaningful growth. This essay: Wikipedia:Places of local interest is worth reading. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slumach[edit]
This gets the Golden WTF? award for puzzling content. I have no idea what it's about, but the tone is not what you'd call promising. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I have no idea what it's about either, but it doesn't appear to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Keep only if rewritten, current page is impossible to decipher but per User:Lawrence Cohen, it would seem that this is something of note. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pray--let give this page a chance till I have created the page "Slumach and the Gold of Pitt Lake." This is valid content for Wikipedia I am sure. Whonnockian (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC) fred[reply]
I am absolutely new in this. This is a valid entry and I would like to know why it would not be in line with the policies. Anyone out there HELP Whonnockian (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of the lack of established or asserted notability. Whonnackian, you should read the Wikipedia content policies - specifically, WP:N for notability, WP:V for verifiability, and WP:RS about reliable sources. Also, note that in the case of this article, while it may be both verifiable and traced to reliable sources it can still fail on notability. AvruchTalk 00:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. This is interesting. Apparently Slumach is some sort of lost mine in the Pitt River area from the 1800s. This might actually be a neat little article, and the person that made it appears to have access to offline/book sources as well. It does read insane, but let this one go a bit. If it's still sounding like nonsense in a month or two we can just nuke it then. There is even a book about this, apparently. I think the article is just very rough around the edges, but I could be wrong. Whatever "Slumach" truly is, as it relates to Pitt Lake, is definitely notable. Whatever it is (lost mine? old mountain man?). • Lawrence Cohen 00:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep if Whonnockian agrees to work to make the article conform with WP:MOS. I think this is notable in that there have been multiple books published about the story and the "lost mine" inspired treasure hunters for decades. We certainly only need the one article, though, not a narrative telling the tale separately. --Dhartung | Talk 00:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AVRUCH: WP:N -- see comments of Dhartung and Lawrence Cohen. As far as WP:V and WP:RS is concerned, one can't have better materials than the original records. TenPoundHammer /Dhartung/Lawrence C. Many thanks have a look at [1] for source material, published books, videos etc. Now I'll go working on the other shoe. Whonnockian (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saturday November 24 2007
Folks: I'm completely new to Wikipedia processes, and perhaps am making a misstep here, but I must toss my support being the entry on Slumach. Perhaps it needs reworking, but the legend of Slumach's gold mine is a bona fide part of the history of British Columbia's greater Vancouver area and deserves a spot in your work.
I am a co-author of "Slumach's Gold: In Search of a Legend". In 1972, we three authors published an earlier version of this work which became the local authority on a legend that has been extant since 1890. This fall, we published a much-expanded 35th anniversary edition of this book, which brings to the fore much more information on the legend.
In essence, it comes to this: in 1890, Slumach murdered Louis Bee, and the murder, the two month search for Slumach, his arraignment, his trial, and his hanging were all chronicled in the press of the day, The Columbian newspaper. This much is verifiable historical fact. A decade later, rumours that Slumach had a lost gold mine near Pitt Lake, just a few dozen miles from Vancouver, surfaced. The rumours said that Slumach had cursed his mine on the gallows, ensuring no one would find it and live. The likely area where ANY mine might be found is treacherous back country, and gold seekers can run afoul of bad weather, difficult terrain, wild animals, etc., and die very easily. There have been many deaths of people searching for the mine, and the popular press has created the image that these deaths are the result of Slumach's curse, though there's no verifiable source for the concept that he even spoke as he stood on the gallows. Certainly, witnesses said that he spoke not a word before he was hanged.
Slumach's story has been told and retold in The Columbian newspaper (now long gone), The Vancouver Sun and The Province, both major newspapers in Vancouver and environs, and in numerous magazines, television productions, etc.
So...this is legit! Our book is on bookshelves everywhere in the Vancouver area right now, spent four weeks on the BC Bestsellers list (books produced in British Columbia) and is available at Chapters.ca, Amazon.ca, and others. Our new website is at www.slumachsgold.ca. Others have produced similar works.
This entry DESERVES a place on Wikipedia. I suggest you give it some time to be rewritten or edited to your satisfaction. The author of the entry is a credible local source of information on the "facts" that relate to the legend. His own website is available at www.slumach.ca. Please check out these references, confirm to your satisfaction that indeed this is a legitimate candidate for a place in your wonderful creation, and allow the author of the piece time to rework it to your satisfaction!
Thank you for your consideration. I'm hoping my intervention will actually appear on line when I hit "Save Page"...but this is my first time at this, so I dunno.
Brian Antonson Co-author "Slumach's Gold: In Search of a Legend"
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slumach" 69.31.179.30 (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Give it time. Give the article a little time to get fixed up, or have Whonnockian put the page on a User sub page until it's fully ready to be on the encyclopedia. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has now been shown to be notable with references. Moving to user space is not the answer, as in main space more experienced editors can help with style issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Quirky pieces on local events, such as the Red Barn Murder can sometimes make it to FA. if well sourced SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amile Waters[edit]
Prod removed so here we are. An autobiography of a not notable pornographic actress. N.B. the fact that it's an autobiography is not a reason for deletion but lack of notability is. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independant sources found. Epbr123 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not sure if there is a particular rubric for including pornographic performers, but I'd argue for deletion on notability. Just in case it passes the AfD, I've added BLP and 'edited here' tags to the talk page. AvruchTalk 00:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The rubric in question would be the "Pornographic actor" section of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Sadly Ms Waters doesn't yet appear to satisfy any of the available criteria for inclusion, so I'll vote Delete. If anyone can find any mention of her somewhere mainstream, or of her particular notability within her field, feel free to strike this !vote :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, non notable, way too many of these entries, what kind of encyclopedia is this anymore? -RiverHockey (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 14:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Squirt. Sorry - I meant Delete! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, pending expansion and possible relisting. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Urgent Computing[edit]
This article's title appears to be a neologism which refers to the idea of doing computing rapidly or immediately, but it does not really describe what the "specialized infrastructure" for this would be. If this were rewritten to discuss a particular methodology of grid computing, I'm not sure it would pass WP:N. Also, there is a conflict of interest here, judging by the username of the creator. Alksub (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hi Alksub, what if the article included a discussion of how urgent computing is implemented in a various circumstances? For example, on a single machine (e.g. UNIX) a 'nice' value for a process may dictate the amount of CPU time the process is allocated. In cluster computing, queues and queue policies dictate the urgency for a job -- in other words the scheduler is responsible for implementing a notion of 'urgency'. We can also give a more detailed overview of how one might go about implementing urgent computing in the context of grid computing, and i think this section can be written to be more general and applicable to other types of distributed computing platforms other than just grid computing. Besides the SPRUCE system (with which I'm also associated with), there are other systems in development that we can describe. For example there are efforts at Virginia Tech and by government agencies to build such infrastructure. Bestchai (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hi Alksub, the article is not fully developed yet. I am new to wikipedia, and was planning on starting up a stub and expanding as and when I get time. While this can be considered neologism, the concept is gaining popularity in the research field - as demonstrated by the interest generated in some major conferences and workshops. I work on the SPRUCE project which is related to urgent computing. The idea behind creating this article was to give a famous platform for urgent computing, so interested users can find it easily. Just like there is a wiki article for Utility Computing which is kind of a commercial counterpart of this. Demonstrations of Urgent Computing have been covered in GridToday in end of 2006, severe weather modelers have used it real time during Spring 07 etc, so it is neither a very new concept nor obscure. Urgentcomputing (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Heroes Chess[edit]no references supplied or found supporting notability so likely WP:MADEUP NeilN talk ♦ contribs 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of approved and under construction skyscapers in Downtown Phoenix[edit]
Violates WP:NOT#IINFO, could serve better as a cat. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] When I created this article, I just wanted to get all this distracting information someone wrote off the Downtown Phoenix page. I don't have any problem with deletion.--Loodog (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Tom & Jerry (Partner 2)[edit]
Prod removed, so here we are. Unreferenced speculation regarding possible title of movie that might get made someday. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Ravenna1961 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bay Area Christian Church[edit]
The article does not make any assertion of notability. A websearch does not turn up anything that might distinguish the Bay Area Christian Church from any other Christian church in the Bay Area. Because it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria PCock (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep; the argument and sources provided by User:JavaTenor are convincing. Having swung the discussion, perhaps JT will be so kind as to add them to the article?--Kubigula (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] MUD Coffee[edit]A local coffee shop that I don't quite think passes WP:CORP standards. It's notability is argued through being called the best coffee in the city by several reputable sources. So does having a few people call you the best cup of coffee equal notable per Wikipedia standards? I lean towards no. If this is kept, those sources need to be cleaned up; cite the independent sources and not the store's website. Metros (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as created by banned user; will redirect to San Bernardino County, California. --Nlu (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Greater San Bernardino Area[edit]
Reprint of material from Inland Empire (California) and San Bernardino County. Creator User:Ie909 is indef-blocked sock of User:House1090, who is prone to making insane pages moves and other edits like this. Ameriquedialectics 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 04:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Project Topaz[edit]
Non-natable -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. I won't leave redirect to Log Cabin Republicans, though, since there's nothing on that page that would explain such a redirect. — Scientizzle 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Homocon[edit]AfDs for this article:
Recreating AFD nomination that TW previously failed to list/tag appropriately... This article is about a neologism that is not notable, with no citations aside from a website called homocon.com and a redlinked individual. AvruchTalk 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted --Haemo (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, season six[edit]
Completing incomplete AFD, nominated by Cosmona [6]. Still think it should be Deleted, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kesac (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Major roads in Metro Manila may be notable, but that does not percolate to the individual roads. — Coren (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Falls of Neuse Road[edit]
No claim to notability, just a street. Punkmorten (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Wikis must meet the same notablility guidelines like WP:WEB as anything else. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Tibetan Wikipedia[edit]
Non-notable Wikipedia edition - 200 articles are not enough. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete by Irishguy copyright violation. RMHED (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naruto clan special bloodline[edit]
This is complete cruft. —Animum (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. From the article it is not clear whether this is an inhabited place; if so it's inherently notable. If not, there appears to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to the existence and importance of the place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Shakatapuram[edit]
The result was Speedy Delete by Mushroom copyright violation. RMHED (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Underschool Element[edit]
Unreferenced, sounds like an ad, questionable notability. Looks like WP:VSCA Dougie WII (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bells (Blackadder)[edit]
This is a non-notable episode that fails WP:N by not having real world information as described in WP:EPISODE and WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild 19:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Whitedust[edit]NN Internet security cite, now defunct, with virtually no press and no sourcing. Written like an advert. --- tqbf 18:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] How to use iPhone Remote outside of your local network[edit]
Prod contested by original contributor. Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. Evb-wiki (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] TEARS: Tales of War[edit]
Contested PROD. Unreleased video game. Unsourced. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Closed early for BLP concerns. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kitty Coni[edit]Apparently non-notable biography, only evidence of notability provided is that her page has had two million hits, which establishes some limited notability but I can't see that it's enough to meet WP:BIO. Google found 30 hits on her name, most appear to be forum posts. No other references given except her own page. Only the original author has edited the article content. Mark Grant (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jib Machine Records[edit]
Non-notable record label; twice deleted speedily. According to their homepage, all their releases can be bought here - and that page lists a total of 7 records. One short article in a local newspaper claimed. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Dark Force (Phantasy Star)[edit]
This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in Phantasy Star series#Prevailing Themes, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ben_Day[edit]AfDs for this article:
The subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for Biographies of Living People, has been subject to constant problems with vandalism and contains information copied and pasted directly from radio station websites which are copyright MNA Broadcasting. Benjday (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice to a redirect which was raised later and no consensus to do so was achieved, but anyone can be WP:BOLD and do it. Carlossuarez46 18:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Liverpool F.C. captains[edit]AfDs for this article:
Unsourced for some time, not really needed. Not kept up in good condition. F9T 20:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to Delete but strongly suggest that an editing decision is made to move the article to List of Yugoslavia international footballers and expand, as suggested in this discussion. Davewild 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Yugoslavia national football team goalscorers[edit]
Wikipedia isn't a sports statistics guide. There's no indication of why five goals is a meaningful cutoff, or why goals by the Yugoslavian team is more notable than any other country, or why the ethnicity of the players should be noted. (That's what the Serb/Croat/Macedonian indicator is after the player's name, right?) It's largely an unmaintainable list, as it would have to be updated after each game. There are no references given. Does it include active players or historical players? eaolson (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's better than a category and is useful for anyone looking for a comprehensive list of this now defunct national teams' goalscorers. Yonatan talk 22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Joseph McGee[edit]I gave this a PROD on grounds of advertisement and COI (subject is Joseph McGee, originator is user:PublictyMcGee (contribs). Originator removed the PROD tag without explanation. I propose that we delete because the article is a conflict of interest, is unsourced, is written like an advertisement, and the subject is of questionable notability - only two of his ten listed works have actually been published. JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tx17777 (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] You may delete this article if you wish. However, I ask next before you make markup that you actually do research beforehand. These other novilazations have book covers, have ISBN number and are listed on web sites, including the publishers from here I found this information. I did list his web site as reference, this also includes the "LINKS" page to where I had entered numerous sites. So please, go ahead and delete this page, but I also hope that there will be no discrimination and dozens of other biographical information of authors are deleted as well. I will not contribute to this web site any longer; but I'm sure eventually, whether it be tomorrow or a year from now, someone will put up a biographical page of this author and of the other four authors I had planned to display. Thank you. PS: I did accidentally delete whatever coding was before this, keyword being: accidentally. However, I was told to write an explaination in the EDIT SUMMARY box, which I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublictyMcGee (talk • contribs)
Riktam Technologies[edit]The result was deleteed by Finlay McWalter per CSD A7. Non-admin clsureSYSS Mouse (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Non-notable company. The author contests the deletion. Mushroom (Talk) 15:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Artists who use Pearl drums[edit]
Indiscriminate information. There's no explanation why a list of artists that use this brand of drum is more significant than any other brand. There's no list criteria for how many artists will be listed or how they will be chosen. eaolson (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete; because of the language barrier, it is possible that the musician is notable— but the WP:BLP concerns because of lack of verifiability override that possibility. No prejudice against recreation of a properly sourced article. — Coren (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sagopa Kajmer[edit]
Not notable per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete; I'm also going to salt the article because of the repeated recreation. It may be possible to write an article without the promotional tone and the WP:BLP concerns; but at this point this will have to be done in userspace first. — Coren (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] David Oliver Doswell, II[edit]
Article has been speedily deleted for lack of notability, recreated under a different name, deleted again, recreated again, and copied to this User Talk Page. Seems to be the purpose of multiple SPAs. At least part of it is copied from this page. All in all, quite a mess. I think we need a consensus on notability. CitiCat ♫ 04:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the WP:NOT problem. Sandstein 22:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] United Airlines former destinations[edit]
Former airlines and destinations (albeit in different contexts) have been discussed before (1), and the arguments are that it's not encyclopediadic, difficult to verify, does not assert notability, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Matt (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was ☢. east.718 at 05:45, November 30, 2007 Radiation poisoning in fiction[edit]
Unsourced trivia clutter. Wikipedia isn't a directory, and isn't a fan's guide to every little mention. RobJ1981 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 05:42, November 30, 2007 Boss Hogg Outlawz[edit]
It's a non-notable record label started by one of the artists, who has since been signed on to two other record labels. All other notable musicians on this label have also moved off to other labels. There are no reliable references for this page, and what I can find on google only appears to confirm that we don't need an article on this. First four hits are official website, MySpace, and two YouTube videos. This article is #6. Also including:
The result was delete. east.718 at 05:42, November 30, 2007 Ahmed Ismail Jumale[edit]
Good faith search for verification of notability turns up *no* results. No sources are cited. Clearly an auto-biography of creating user. Newtman (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. Davewild 19:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kérim Chatty[edit]This article is about a guy who was accused of planning to hijack a plane. The investigation was dropped, he was cleared of all terrorism-related charges and only convicted for carrying an illegal handgun. He is not notable and the article reeks of speculation and false accusations. Unithow (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge somewhere, without a clear consensus as to where or that a suitable merge target exists. As has been done with other fictional works with a surplus of minor-character articles, it may be a good idea to develop new lists or reformat existing ones to accept merged information from such articles. That, however, is an editorial task, not an administrative one, and will probably take more planning and work than can be accomplished at a single AfD. It is encouraging to see that the discussion has largely remained civil, and it would be best to continue it between the editors involved as to how to develop such parent articles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Adam Mitchell[edit]
Two-episode Doctor Who character. The article is mostly a plot summary of those two episodes, peppered with fan observations (i.e. shortest travelling time with the Doctor, no appearances on the Tardis control deck). Despite these, the character isn't notable. Nydas(Talk) 12:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Taixing Street[edit]
Doesn't seem notable. This basically seems to be an article about "my street". thisisace (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Keep argument is that the band is notable, which misses the point that these bootlegs are not, we're not deleted the band's article. Carlossuarez46 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Live at Lowlands 2408[edit]
Bootlegs (illegal recordings) are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry unless proven otherwise. Nominating for deletion based on previous precedents Angel's Dream, Bless the Century Child, Mysteries and Mysteries vol. 2 and Wishsides. ReyBrujo (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:
The result was Speedy delete. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] ClipMoon[edit]Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to ClipMoon. Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#G11. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Cyber Monday[edit]Mainly a page on Criticism and very little about the subject in hand. The page is very unbalanced and is a POV trap. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 09:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is helpful - I wanted to be sure I knew which day it was, and now I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.63.18 (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ferndale Strangler[edit]
Fictional character/storyline with no sign of any real world notability Pak21 (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 05:40, November 30, 2007 List of Indian architects[edit]
This is a list without any sources and will not ever be an exhaustive list. Category:Indian architects already exists and makes this list redundant. A category is much more suited for such lists. Aksi_great (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. :( east.718 at 05:40, November 30, 2007 2007 Illinois vs. Ohio State football game[edit]
Although this game was an upset there is no real significance to it in the overall scope of the season other than a note being made on the actual article of the 2007 season. Joebengo (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ash Woolson[edit]Subject does not appear to meet guidelines for notability WP:N. Of the four references listed, two link to his personal photography sites, and the other two do not mention him at all...just the organizations he is supposed to be involved with. This article seems more like an advertisement for the subject's photography and/or political agenda. Arx Fortis (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Sandstein (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Trapezium of vowels[edit]
This article has been incomplete since December 2005! Ghits don't look encouraging. MER-C 06:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. east.718 at 05:39, November 30, 2007 Analysis[edit]Redirect as nom to Analysis (disambiguation). Nearly all of the article's content is on that page already, and it's a dictionary definition. Temperalxy 01:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Spongebob Season 6[edit]
Article already exists (barely) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SpongeBob_SquarePants_episodes%2C_season_six Arx Fortis (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Mostly Harmless. Anthony Appleyard 22:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Infinidim Enterprises[edit]
This fictional company is not notable per WP:FICT. For example, a google search only finds 557 hits, and a NY Times search finds none. The organization was not a memorable part of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Foobaz·o< 05:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Avatar (icon) and possibly rename the target article. Tikiwont (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Avatar (video games)[edit]
WP:NOT#DICT Arx Fortis (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Benerator[edit]Non-notable software. Doesn't seem to verifiable either, the news ghits are unrelated and the first 110 of the ghits aren't reliable. MER-C 05:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by User:Neutrality, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Fresh prince of Jamestown[edit]
Only source given is 1st party, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 05:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close, malformed AfD nomination. Article already has a PROD tag on it, let the PROD run its course first. non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mental Omega[edit]Why should this unofficial mod be given a page on Wikipedia? Is there anything that would differentiate this mod from the myriad of other mods created for RA2? Think this fails notability by a million miles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AKFrost (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. east.718 at 05:38, November 30, 2007 Union of Progressive Students[edit]
That this organization exists is not an issue [15] but I can't find any reliable sources for any of the text. There is also no assertion of notability. seav (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Marion Frances Chevalier[edit]
A (former) professor at USC, lending her name as a professorship, but beyond that, not much. Jmlk17 04:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the notability of her work. (that a professorship was named after her is in my opinion indeed not all that much of a criterion--USC like other universities, when it gets money for chairs, names them after distigujshed figures or after the donor. In this case it is presumably not the donor--few faculty are paid enough to endow chairs in their own name for future generations, but they can have sufficient academic influence, for others to name chairs after them. One notable publication with multiple reviews is sufficient for the notability of an academic author, and the reviews cited are the third party sources showing the notability. There is not as much supporting material as the would be for someone in the internet era, and this should be taken into account. DGG (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus that WP:PROF criteria has been met. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Peggy Kamuf[edit]A professor at USC and an English translator are the only claims to notability. I don't believe that to be enough. Jmlk17 04:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 05:38, November 30, 2007 Bay City Buccaneers[edit]Page tagged for speedy, but google search turns up several hits so I'd like some feedback. New York Dreams (talk)
The result was Delete as it has not become clear what exactly the topic is and how it can been expanded. Tikiwont (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kaulim[edit]Same as Uyot, this article has been around for a while. A couple members of WP:PLANTS have tried to identify the species, but there appear to be no reliable sources for this common name. Without the species name and in the absence of any relable sources to expand this article, I propose it be deleted or possibly transwikied to Wiktionary. Rkitko (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm asking around some online forums for more information on this plant. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as it has not become clear what exactly the topic is and how it can been expanded. Tikiwont (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Uyot[edit]Article is a sub-stub. Several editors from WP:PLANTS have searched through existing reliable sources and haven't been able to pinpoint the species. Only existing google hits don't appear to be WP:RS with which to expand the article. Delete or possibly transwiki to Wiktionary. Rkitko (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 05:36, November 30, 2007 Govill (Gamemaker game)[edit]
Non-notable computer game. "Played 93 times". No independent sources. Prod removed by article creator. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 05:36, November 30, 2007 Area 51 Entertainment, Inc.[edit]
A record label and its owner. No evidence of notability or even of existence. Both the works of Snakea5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Unless someone more knowledgable in this field can find some information that corroborates this, I think both comprise an ad for a non-notable person and his company. Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Chris Spence[edit]AfDs for this article:
The subject of this page is not notable. The page looks like it started as an ad for his book. Look at the original post, it's just an ad for the book, with a link to Amazon right there at the beginning. Wikipedia is NOT a place to advertise. This page does not appear to have any other purpose than promotion of Chris Spence and his book.--James52 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This much travelled writer on global warming has attracted some interest as is shown by the numerous internet references to him which can be found through a search on google. Re-writing once again all the bits that were found is a waste of time. It has already been done. I am sure the subject of this article would not like to have himself referred to as 'one more little piece of junk'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.142.226.26 (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand. This is getting a bit ridiculous. 90% of the article has now been removed including factual , verifiable statements. The article is removed to a few sentences, some with two footnotes a sentence. Either the chap is notable and worth writing about or not, but reducing the article to almost a stub with only a few sentences is clearly not the way to go. (JB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.142.226.26 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Spellcast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin close. cab (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Midhat Hifziefendić[edit]
A photographer, but wihtout any assertion of notability. (Prodded earlier, but had its prod template removed.) Name of SPA who edited it suggests COI too. Hoary (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 05:36, November 30, 2007 Morgantown Mall[edit]
Another non-notable mall in Virginia; search for sources turned up nothing special. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 05:35, November 30, 2007 Mountaineer Mall[edit]
Non-notable mall in West Virginia. A search for sources online found nothing of note (and judging by the mall's website, the place is mostly vacant anyway). Also contains a dash of original research. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bad Form[edit]Article was a prod but was removed several times by an anon and even at times the article was blanked, so it goes to AFD. Article was proposed for deletion because being unencyclopeic. JForget 01:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Portland Adventist Academy[edit]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 03:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bente Christensen[edit]
No sources since June 2006. Article may have been an autobiographical page initially. Hammer1980·talk 00:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Pel Mel[edit]non notable, non sourced and a disbanded band English836 (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. east.718 at 05:36, November 30, 2007 Black Rattle Lake[edit]
Can't see anything especially notable about this lake over any others. Hammer1980·talk 00:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Neurosphere (Film)[edit]
Movie expected to be released in 2009, seems to easily fail WP:CRYSTAL, plus sounds spammy. Dougie WII (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 04:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Disney mania 6[edit]
Unconfirmed album only mentioned in blogs and forums. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (someone removed the prod on this without addressing the issues raised) Dougie WII (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Whether this pub just meets or just misses WP:N is a close decision and the community's lack of consensus on that is pretty clear. It has more information and coverage than what one would expect for an otherwise local pub (Sunday Telegraph, e.g.) so this is not a precedent where any local watering hole that gets mentioned in the home-town press meets WP:N (see WP:LOCAL). Carlossuarez46 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] John Brunt V.C. (public house)[edit]
Nice article, but of local interest only, so I think that it's unencyclopedic as per WP:NOTABILITY. Perhaps add a summary to the Paddock Wood village article. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 00:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Oxymoron83 09:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of countries that have never qualified for a major football tournament[edit]
A good example of WP:NOT, no WP:V or WP:RS provided, and, extrapolating, an article that will eventually never exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Special Entertainment[edit]
I don't think this is quite an A7...but it doesn't seem to be notable Signed, Jonathan • Don't stereotype 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of information/references/links are you guys looking for? I went to many other film production company articles on Wikipedia that have less information, fewer links, and seem much less noteworthy. I can certainly write a longer article with more information if that's what you want. Shatner1 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The company recently changed names. I guess I'll wait until the IMDb changes take effect (siting Special Entertainment instead of Fortress Productions), and wait for the other print articles to come out, then I'll re-post this article with those changes. How many more "reliable sources" do you think I need? Two? Ten? Shatner1 (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 03:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Humanities policy[edit]
Poorly written personal musings on a topic the notability of which is not established. Argumentative/essay style ('we contend that...'). Half of the 'article' is also plagiarised from this website.[22] Apparent conflict of interest as well, since one of the more active authors of the article is one User:Frodeman, who seems to be personally involved in advocating the ideas that 'we [in the article] contend' in order to earn a living. Misella Landica (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep but cleanup required. Davewild 20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Black ambient[edit]
Pretentious gibberish, original research--even the existence of the genre as separate from other genres seems to be original research, no assertion of notability, no references. In all, this page adds nothing to Wikipedia, and the encyclopaedia won't be worse off without it. Misella Landica (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. The label may strike some hearers as inaccurate, but there is sufficient evidence to show that the term exists and is in use. The article may require refinement to substantiate individual assertions with direct citations, but a base of scholarship clearly proves the currency of the term. Debate over retitling for clarity is not best resolved at AfD, but the article's talk page. Having said that, I will re-title the article editorially, adding "(economic model)", to distinguish the article from the actual historical Anglo-Saxon economy, on which Wikipedia might someday have an article. Xoloz (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anglo-Saxon economy[edit]
The result was Keep, perfectly valid redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anchluss[edit]This is simply a misspelling of Anschluss, please delete it. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I had no idea that "common" misspellings are OK. I beg to differ about the "common", though. A quick Google search reveals 2,000 hits for "anchluss" on English-language pages, as opposed to 585,000 for the (correctly spelled) "anschluss". That's a misspelled rate of under .5% . If that qualifies as "common" in Wikipedia terms, I stand corrected, but I still consider it absurd. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, perfectly valid redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Reisch[edit]Reisch isn't a German word, see Anchluss. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 03:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Johann Heinrich Zur Oeveste[edit]DELETE: Comment: Sieroversche (talk · contribs) See [34] [35] [36] And discussion pages Main source to this article prof. A. Holtmann does not believe in the encyclopedic value of the main character of his book "Ferner thue ich euch zu wissen ..." So for that reason it should be gone than. Regarding the other what is mentioned like a lack on sources or if it is a hoax or not true see [37] Sorry that it is in Dutch— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sieroversche (talk • contribs)
The result was I have deleted this article, as the notability is marginal, and the subject requests deletion. These two in conjunction would seem to allow us to do the right thing here.. Mercury 13:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Robert Lambton[edit]I declined the speedy deletion request because the subject clearly makes an assertion of notability. However, I don't think that the subject is notable for Wikipedia. The subject is mentioned in a few reliable sources (newspapers), but I fail to see where Lambton has been the main subject of an entire reliable source. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
