The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although this article about a visionary artist claims notability, there are no independent reliable sources that substantiate any of the information here, hence this article fails WP:NOTE. Google for <"Daniel Mirante"> (with quotes) finds 59 results, none from reliable sources and all mention the subject very briefly. [1] Search for <"Daniel Mirante" "Journal of Cosmic Play"> gets 5 results - the journal itself, Wikipedia, and a blog. [2] JSTOR, Factiva and LexisNexis turn up no results. Resurgent insurgent 00:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I am considered by many artists within the field as a valuable contributor to the visionary art scene. Right now the visionary art scene is somewhat esoteric, so unless you take the time to research it you may not appreciate my contributution.
I have written the wiki entry on visionary art and many of the practicing artists there have wiki entries. I have added a wiki entry for myself and it appears 'resurgent insurgent' has it in for me for some reason. This entry is simply to contexturise my work within the visionary art scene. I'm not 'self advertising'. Most of the projects I have conducted within the visionary art movement have been to bring more attention to artists in this scene.
I have been published in several journals considered important to the contemporary visionary art scene. These include 'The Visionary Revue' at visionaryrevue.com (check the page to see the high profile of my projects'. The famous visionary artist Oleg Korolev has claimed that the www.lila.info project, run by myself, represents best the current scene as it stands.
I have published several unique interviews with the representatives of the visionary art movement and also produced historical and theoretical contexturisations of the scene. Only two other people, Laurence Caruana and Jon Beinart, are involved in this work.
I am also an apprentice of the famous artist Brigid Marlin www.brigidmarlin.com... she runs the Society for Art of the Imagination, which is considered one of the most important organisations in the visionary art scene. I have written several articles and had work published in the Inscape magazine which is one of the only regular journals to cover the visionary art movement. My membership to ths society can be verified with Brigid Marlin or my work viewed on the societies site.
I have had work published by Elfintome which is the West coast flagship for the visionary art movement.
Basically, I feel foolish by these neccesary self-justifications but I feel my integrity and intention is being questioned by this action to remove my existence from Wikipedia. My work is considered important by people within this fledgling scene, but I can understand from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about this movement that my wiki entry may seem pointless. But is that fair to judge unless someone is aware of this scene in detail ? I don't go to areas of wiki that I know little about and then question peoples relevance or the integrity of their work.
Daniel Mirante
Danielmirante 12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so looking at the big red signs pasted onto the wiki entry in my name, and surveying the objections to the wikipedia guidelines (which do say "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense"... and "is a guideline, not a policy", I had my partner the editted wikipedia entry, so it no longer conforms to 'autobiography', nor does it fall under biography because it is not a life review. It is a discussion of a participant in the visionary art scene and is intended to be an informational source on my work.
Just because the 'judges' of this entry may not be aware of the field under discussion here does not give grounds for deletion, since this would be an act of deletion through a prejudice toward subject matter... or rather ignorance of subject matter ... visionary art may be irrelevant to you but this is not the basis on which information should be deleted from wikipedia.
Also, 'lack of reliable sources', I want to know what 'reliable' means as this is not quantified by wiki.
Resurgent Insurgent is wrong about 'lack of reliable sources' - there are several websites (www.elfintome.com, www.lila.info, www.visionaryrevue.com, www.artofimagination.org etc) and publications that carry my work, and I am the apprentice of a painter who is acknowledged as a visionary master artist. What is so unreliable about this ? You may never have heard of my work but the people involved in the scene under discussion have.
Similarly my friend has provided avenues to verify the existence of my art career and writings, which may be of no personal interest or relevance to you, but will be to people interested in visionary art.
Wikipedia has room to grow... it is not a paper encyclopedia. If it is useful to the people concerned with visionary art then let it be !
Best Daniel Mirante
80.229.40.235 15:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote by Oleg Korolev, visionary art master
"By the way such art enthusiasts as Brigid Marlin ( and her "Society of Art of Imagination"), Jon Beinart ( and this forum) and Keith Wigdor ("Surrealism Now") , Daniel Mirante ( lila.info ), actually represent this movement now ... AND THAT IS ALL...! "
http://www.koro-art.com/ http://surrealartforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1017
15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Painting of Daniel Mirante by Brigid Marlin , founder of the Society of Art of Imagination
http://brigidmarlin.com/Pages/CatholicMysteries/Resurrection.html
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly fails WP:BIO - can come back if he gets elected to Provincial office - Delete Bridgeplayer 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor suggested I take this to AfD, so I am doing so. Without the irrelevant details about current faculty, this "article" consists of a one-line description. Without sources or claims to notability it appears to be unable to be expanded beyond this. There are many things in the world that exist, but Wikipedia is not a catalog of them. Salad Days 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect --Bubba hotep 09:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable Person make no other accomplishments other than as a supporting cast member on the Uncle Floyd Show They call me Mr. Pibb 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Even the deleters don't sound terribly convinced of the case. -Splash - tk 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. The mentions in reliable publications are trivial; other sources are self-published. RJASE1 Talk 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Epbr123 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Battlelore. --Coredesat 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC for an independent article. Nv8200p talk 15:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Cryptic 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 15:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Disregarding single-purpose accounts, the arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping. There was nothing presented to satisfy WP:ATT and WP:RS. --Coredesat 04:53, 7 April 2007 (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)) . |
A web mailing list that doesn't seem to meet the guidelines laid out in WP:WEB. Googling only brings up about 600 ghits, almost all of which are irrelevant. This article fails WP:ATT and is not verifiable through reliable secondary sources. The current references consist of a forum mention and a copy of something from the mailing list itself. The article has been tagged with the "verify" tag since November and no improvements have been made to it. Delete as such. Wickethewok 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established or sourced per WP:CORP, WP:WEB. WP:SPAM is also possibly applicable. RJASE1 Talk 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect --Bubba hotep 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Card game that doesn't assert notability. Article is also unsourced. Google turned up a couple of reviews, but they can't be considered reliable. Delete per WP:ATT and WP:N-K@ngiemeep! 23:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question So, do the folks calling for deletion oppose a redirect to Steve Jackson Games which already has a brief entry about this game? FrozenPurpleCube 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article about one web designer's script for embedding flash videos in web pages. There are many such scripts, I see nothing particularly notable about this one. --Mcoder 01:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, previously speedied as A7. Author claims notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the various pieces of feedback.
It's not clear to me what is "promotion" in the article, since the bio covers all sorts of notable events and experiences, etc., and states that his video is no longer in release and he works in non-profit work as a chaplain. There is no reference to web sites or anything else that seems to be "promoting."
As Lloyd Bentsen might say, "He's no John Kennedy," but the bio is intended to provide basic factual information about him and cites those who he worked with, wrote and reported about, produced for, etc., as assertions of notability.
I don't know what a "dump" is, but presume it means something like a cut and paste. Clearly, given all the citations to published works, etc., it is not that. In fact, it was written off line (to avoid being dumped by a limited access ISP and keep a phone line open) and submitted and corrected following various views and reviews, as well as updates to sources following previous comments about assertions of notability.
I respect the purpose of Wikipedia, but let's not forge that the company head was just on network news telling the world that it is good that colleges are banning it as a citable research source because of its "grass roots" provenance (my phrase, not his) that is part of the new interactive age. It seems to me that the standards being asserted here, while very helpful, are so strict as to make it impossible for any but the highest of academics to put anything here. If that were truly the source of all of Wiki's content, it seems unlikely that, for all its value, it is the subject of such great discredit right now.
Also, while there is much said about providing verifiable sources, etc., I've read dozens of pages here that provide no such material, links, etc., that is provided in this bio. Nothing says this guy will ever win a Nobel Prize or deserves any great praise or honor, but let's not forget the Albert Einstein was a sixth grade drop-out who was, accordin to his teachers, destined for nothing. And this guy's no Einstein, but we shouldn't forget that the true print encyclopedia's are filled with thousands of people none of us knew, but learned about and came to appreciate, perhaps respect, because someone took the time to write something about them and find what's notable. This guy's been in the Kremlin, at KGB Headquarters, with Billy Graham for his only Soviet crusade, etc. That doesn't make this guy famous like Graham, but certainly notable. And he's a widely published journalist, with no book or other products being hawked in the entry or anywhere else that I know of. This is clearly of intrinsic value, not remotely commercial in orientation. And it's not asking for money, donations, sales, anything...
Cute neologism with the ol' "sycophancy" comment. But stating facts with clarity and citations is not "sycophancy," it's just providing some depth and context. The purpose of Wiki, as I understood it, was to add or modify based on personal knowledge or research of citations, not to blast and attack someone else's work with cute, pithy, Roger Ebert-esque sound bites. Please be as respectful with the comments as we're told to be with our replies to those who suggest deletion, modification, edits, etc. [By the way, as I noted earlier, my ISP just booted me while I wrote this, so I had to log back on in the hope that Wiki would take this when I hit "save".]
Also, the suggestion that it be added to slowly seems contraindicated by the fact that it was previously deleted for being too short. Now you say make it short and add to it later. Since this isn't Al Gore or Charlton Heston, too little made/makes folks like you say "who is this and why is he notable?" So an article answering those questions is completed and submitted to resolve such concerns and it is blasted for having that depth of content, assertions, proofs, citations and links, etc. In that sense, therre seems to be no way to win.
Also, the suggestion that someone else restart it... Just who do you recommend? Someone who doesn't know the subject or sources? Or, as another of you said, someone who just doesn't care for or like this person/profile/article? It's like asking Nancy Pelosi to write a profile of George Bush! Or Eve to write about Al Gore? (Who doesn't know Al from Adam! Though that's not the right analogy, aster all. I'm just not as quick a wit as "Mr. Sycophancy," I guess.)
Finally, I've found many wonderfully written and other woefully written pieces here on Wikipedia, but I don't figure that it is my place to insist that in order for each and every one of them to stay here they must be written in such a way as to conform to my very own personal and, I admit, narrow need to "keep my [very own] heart and my head in harmony." That is the joy of perusing encyclopedias and Wikipedia -- to challenge and push and test and expand and enrich our hearts and minds. I'm not saying that this does this, but it is far from the sort of trash we've all seen all over the web/net, and its example of someone who has done much in his life to report on others in the more traditional media and served others as a chaplain/missionary is certainly worthy of being considered by those who are interested in such things and might be even slightly inspired by it, as I was.
Please, as Rodney King once said, to much grumbling, "Can't we all just get along?" (Or, as quoted by others, "We can all get along.")
I'm new to the Wikipedia process, but hope that I've slid fast up the learning curve -- and ask your forgiveness to the extent that I'm not entirely up to snuff yet.
Just count me a "Sycophancy Pansy" (not interested in hawking anyone but trying to find ways to get people to think about a lot of others. (By the way, that's what this guy did: tell stories about others. I'm telling his, sorry of an effort as mine has been.)
Thanks for your patience.
P.S. Even I had difficulty reading it once it was done, but not for style and content reasons. I found/find the very narrow/thin font on Wiki almost insufferable.
The result was Delete. Shimeru 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to her IMDB credits her roles mainly consist of names along the lines of: Beautiful Babe, Maid, Fantasy Girl, Friend, and repeatedly being Trophy Model for BET. Non-notable. IrishGuy talk 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blogger but the article lacks any substantial secondary sources. Bridgeplayer 15:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep no argument given, nomination is in defiance of the reference section. It's also a featured article linked from the main page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject may be non-notable after all. Xiner (talk, a promise) 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, although this should not be seen as setting any kind of precedent, in spite of some comments made in the AfD. --Coredesat 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic. The monster entries are only comprised of plot summaries (WP:NOT#IINFO) and are only sourced from the TV show itself. It contains absolutely no out-of-universe context (WP:WAF). There is very little possibility to get any kind of secondary sourcing or out-of-universe context because VR Troopers is relatively obscure; it's highly unlikely that we will find interviews from the producers about the monsters. I recommend deletion as an article unmaintable and unencyclopedic. Hbdragon88 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not an almanac or a collection of statistics or budget revenues or expenses. This might be able to become an article, but then it probably wouldn't warrant it's own article at all. At present, it violated WP:NOT#INFO. I recommend a straight delete -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MUSIC for notability guidelines. Furthermore, this page reads like a fan site and not an encyclopedia article. Delete. JakeB 22:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable band; unsigned. Claims notability due to appearance at South x Southwest and 1 song on soundtrack of obscure film. I don't think they meet WP:MUSIC. Contested speedy (see article talk page). NawlinWiki 03:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC)
The result was Delete. Shimeru 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list suffers from arbitrary inclusion criteria. What is substantially different between these songs and songs 61 seconds in length? Or 62 seconds? They're all short. The notion that this is a notable way to classify songs is original research, specifically original synthesis. I suggest we delete. — coelacan — 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of songs under a minute in length. What original theory does it introduce? How exactly is it "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor"?
To the extent that it needs references, reference to the recordings upon which they appear would seem to be sufficient; that isn't grounds for deletion. Obviously the creator has put a lot of work into creating this page. Please remember the Golden Rule, people. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next to nothing is known about this future Terry Pratchett book. The sole content of the stub - that it will not be a Discworld book - is pure speculation. Thus I believe it is better to delete the whole thing and start fresh once some reliable information is released. CharonX/talk 03:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, april fools vandalism (csd g3?). - Bobet 09:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know where to begin. Obviously this is an April Fool's day joke. It was originally tagged for speedy deletion, but later removed because the article does assert notability. In fact, quite a bit of notability. However, Annie Mail certainly does not exist, Cher did not reference her ever, and she is definitely not an online editor at Time Magazine. Probably my favorite part about the whole article was that she discovered hip hop upon meeting "Da Man Swizzle Dizzle." Anyway, I nominate for deletion, probably speedy deletion, and hopefully even inclusion in WP:BJAODN. Just read it. You'll laugh. And then "cry with tears of undisputed joy." Rockstar915 04:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted by Mailerdiablo (WP:CSD#G1). ◄Zahakiel► 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I already nominated Annie Mail for deletion; Helga Funk was created by the same auther, with the same ridiculous nonsense. Not only does Helga Funk not exist, but she certainly did not predict the "inventions of automobiles, the entire field of aeronautics, and man's landing on the moon," nor write any of her groundbreaking science fiction. Per my arguments on Annie Mail's AfD, this article was most likely an April Fool's day joke, and the author is probably getting a kick out of the fact that its even being discussed. But... the article asserts notability, no doubt, but still should be speedied, and probably put in WP:BJAODN. Rockstar915 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ross Walker, exact phrase, along with "amber" has 10 ghits, the top being a self-promotional site, and the rest seem to be various project pages, no outside coverage by reliable sources. There seems to be no evidence of independent press coverage that mentions Ross Walker in the context of AMBER. He is not currently mentioned in the WP article AMBER. This page was created by User:RossCWalker. The speedy delete tag was removed from the article by a newly created single-purpose account. There is no evidence of notability that satisfies WP:BIO Darkspots 05:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Rhinoceros. --Coredesat 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear and present hoax. This non-existent dinosaur lived 350 million years before other dinosaurs in the precambrian, eating branches from the tall trees which didn't exist in the precambrian either. Dinosaur-sized bollocks.Grutness...wha? 06:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This falls under Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information in my opinion. It's a fan list that isn't very notable to people other than Simpsons fans, and its very trivial. Lots of one time things happen in shows (the Simpsons especially), I dont see a need for them all here. What's next: things Lisa complains about? jobs held by Bart? Things Maggie has played with? All happen on a frequent basis (maybe a little less, but it's a comparision, to show there is many repeating themes that could be collected in useless lists). Previous AFD was no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Homer Simpson's jobs. RobJ1981 07:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. The closing remark by the nominator suggests this should be worked out elsewhere, and that deletion was never his actual intention. -Splash - tk 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that a news director of a small television station is inherently notable. I have tried to clean this article up, but I still don't feel that Hannan is notable or worthy of an article. MatthewUND(talk) 07:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question What do you bean by a small television station — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.138.189 (talk • contribs)
Check WP:BIO Again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.138.189 (talk • contribs)
The result was speedy delete. Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. The only external reference is the bands myspace site. delete--Greatestrowerever 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Demo by band whose article was speedy deleted per CSD A7. WjBscribe 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
album by non-notable band Silver Hammer that is also up for deletion. Should also be Deleted--Greatestrowerever 08:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by Mailer diablo (CSD A7). WjBscribe 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Member of non notable band Silver Hammer which is also up for deletion. Delete--Greatestrowerever 08:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus = default keep --Bubba hotep 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not noteable Dalejenkins 08:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rap artist, appears to fail WP:MUSIC Neier 08:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax, entirely unsourced, original research. "Sagging fetishism" gets 0 google hits while "sagging fetish" gets 27, mostly related to breasts. Robotman1974 08:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed; deleted per nom Raul654 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: please check for WP:CANVAS like [7]
Neologism; POV fork of Scientific data archiving. RonCram spent an awful long time [8] and repeats trying to label inadequate data arching as pseudo science. Eventually he gave up, only to put the same text in a different article, this one. Its just a POV fork/vehicle for RonCram William M. Connolley 08:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Background info - keep at bottom:
The result was KEEP. -Splash - tk 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod of a rabbi. No sources, no googles, possible lack of notability. >Radiant< 09:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. -Splash - tk 17:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia. Not a meaningful grouping. Unsourced. Irrelevant for e.g. many animalistic characters, or cartoons that don't involve speech. >Radiant< 09:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Low Alexa rank Computerjoe's talk 09:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN Computerjoe's talk 09:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. At this time, this FP6 project does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Serious conflict of interest issues also appear to be present. -Splash - tk 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software, vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 09:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 22:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 10:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikiied dictdef, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested prod. MER-C 10:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and insufficiently referenced crystal balling. Contested prod. MER-C 10:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bubba hotep 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, unverified, original research. Out of the very few sentences in the article, only one has some references, that too has little to do with the subject. Previous AFD resulted in keep, but most of the keep voters assumed notability without any proof or references being provided. The article has remained unreferenced since June 2006. So, I nominate it for AFD, and vote for Delete as unreferenced original research. Ragib 10:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Contested prod. MER-C 10:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Rlevse 13:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I declined this speedy ages ago in favor of a prod that got contested. Another editor left a comment on the talk page to the effect of being unable to verify any of the sources cited here. Without being able to verify the depth of coverage, it is impossible to establish notability. Without notability established, the article should be deleted. Chaser - T 11:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. I do not think that WP:CORP applies to the article as I read it now, since it does not speak about a corporation (or similar). I find it surprising that the previous AfD led to survival of GoogleTV since the references in the article are all (but one) from Youtube, hardly a source of encyclopaedic standing. The external links are a fraction better, I suppose. In any case, the article in question here is substantially original research, most obviously the 'Proof of a hoax' section, and I'm surprised no-one mentioned that. The 'Alleged access...' section seems pointless, as it merely recounts in painful detail the content of a YouTube video. That just leaves the 'List of...' section, which nowhere claims notability. Perhaps a halfway cruft-free article that "gets over itself" on GoogleTV might pass muster, but here is not where to start, and this article claims to be about a 'thing' that fails every test we might apply to it. -Splash - tk 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Video production company that fails WP:CORP. Much of the article content is about their hoaxes, which also apparently fail WP:N. Mikeblas 12:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT to Ladonia (micronation). Nominator: note that merge+delete is generally considered impermissible. -Splash - tk 16:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This unsourced stub is about the "currency" of one of those joke micronations so insignificant that it consists of the location of two sculptures and boasts of having no actual residents; odds are long that not even any fake currency has ever been minted. At the best this deserves no more than a Merge and Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:ATT, WP:BULLSHIT. Yay for "random article." (Mind you, I can get behind a micronation with an official "Ministry of Duct Tape and High Voltage") RGTraynor 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an infant school (ie to about 7-8 years old) with no obvious claims to specialness. Contested prod. Mr Stephen 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. utcursch | talk 05:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable piece of shit; only has 491 articles, and not very well-known outside a small community. We don't have a page for ED, which has way more articles, why bother with this shit? Knighhtz 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC) — knighhtz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was DELETE, nn-corp. -Splash - tk 16:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like advertising to me. Postcard Cathy 15:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO RESULT. The nominator failed to nominate; the debate went nowhere. I see no point relisting this as there is no nomination to proceed on the basis of. I would suggest a fresh, properly-argued case be made (for example, by User:DGG). -Splash - tk 16:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. howcheng {chat} 06:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unrefenced, delete--Greatestrowerever 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (references now added)--Greatestrowerever 21:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Fairfax County Public Schools. There is nothing to merge as the target has this information already. --Coredesat 05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Fairfax Public Schools article is one of the better school district articles we have, and coverage of that county's many schools is extremely good. I get the strong impression from all the work done there that this list is the beginning of a more detailed article on elementary schools in the district and that individual school articles may be calved off from this glacier as information about them is added (the opposite also applies: if you have a bad elementary school article, this would be the place to merge it with, since Fairfax Public Schools has too many schools for one article to fit descriptions of all of them).
Given the effort demonstrated in so many other Fairfax Public Schools articles, if an editor tells us this is the beginning of an article where more and more information on elementary schools will be supplied, let's step aside and let it happen. It's hard to believe that some reader is going to search out this particular subject and then be disappointed by what appears on the screen, so there's no harm in us waiting. But I won't vote "Keep" unless someone can give us a good idea of what is planned for this article.Noroton 15:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT to Easterhouse, where this is already mentioned. -Splash - tk 16:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a shopping mall/complex . There are hundreds of thousands of them. Suggest only notable complexes such as the West Edmonton Mall or Mall of America be included, as they are notable for size and history, not just having stores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Shean (talk • contribs) 2007/04/02 12:34:14
Agree rather with Thunderwing, though it might be added that Wikipedia has transcended its encyclopaedic mission to such an extent that it is such an important reference tool and is relied upon by people whose frame of reference is limited to their own area and to areas they plan to visit and is not globally interested in shopping per se, or in the general locale of Easterhouse. Obviously, the article cannot remain in the standard in which it currently stands. JoeKennedy1979 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the culprict! I was the one who made the Glasgow Fort article.
It was one of many efforts to acknowledge many different Scottish Shopping Centres designs, but it's not in great shape, neither does it have a lot of good information in it. i have actually been very disappointed in the way it has turned out, i guess there wasn't much to say about it, but it looks like there is two options a) save the article, complete start from stratch again or b) decide there are too many shopping centres in the world to worry about this particular one with cliched features, there are already something like thirteen of these sort of places from Bournemouth to Staines, London to Birmingham to Speke, Liverpool to Edinburgh in the UK.
Go ahead, i will let you put the article to bed if you think it is the right thing to do! (basically, giving you permission for deletion)
I. Thomson 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure, i forgot to say, i agree with Thunderwing, merge the article into Easterhouse and delete Glasgow Fort. i didn't know Easterhouse existed, tell you what, can i be given permission to write a new condensed Glasgow Fort article in Easterhouse. i'll do that instead.
I. Thomson 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, elkspeak. my work on the Kirkcaldy article caused bother with some, because i was extending it. don't know why, thought they would be pleased? that's why and thank you for not making me look bad. i appreciate that "very" much
I. Thomson 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. The others (no pun intended) were soundly deleted, and this one is even farther out than those. I can't find that this has been confirmed by the network yet, and so basically any source is original research by derivation until that occurs. (I did note an entry on the IMDb, but it contained nothing. If I've missed some announcement, then I'd suggest that someone visit WP:DRV with a link to it). I recognise I'm effectively overruling the swing of the debate, but a consistent outcome seems far more sensible to me. -Splash - tk 16:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball...and spoilerfix.com is not a reliable source.Depressed Marvin 19:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hoax; the Gus Cummins mentioned on the Talk Page is clearly a different artist. It is claimed that he influenced Joy Division, but he was born in 1966 and they formed in 1976 and disbanded in 1980. How many 10 year olds do you know who have influenced indie music? The globetrotter 14:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 22:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Liam McLeod has reached the notability level, how many people outside Scotland has heard of him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanmarino2007v1 (talk • contribs) 2007/04/01 21:25:15
The result was Keep --Bubba hotep 11:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written; future game with no references; author unlikely to return to fix up article - I had to fix up his typos and even then, I didn't fix it all - author should take responsibility for cleaning up their own articles! Postcard Cathy 21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non compliant with the policy attributable. Read the policy and you will see it is non-compliant, then if you search for reliable attribution for the article in accordance with policy as I have, I think you will find it qualifies for deletion as un-attribut-able. Lotusduck 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. spoilerfix.com is not a reliable source. Depressed Marvin 19:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it hasn't been confirmed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. spoilerfix.com is not a reliable source. --Depressed Marvin 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spoilerfix is a reliable source, however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --thedemonhog talk contributions 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with The Brig and Greatest Hits (Lost). This article is also poorly written and I don't feel like rewriting it when it's getting deleted anyway. ShadowUltra 21:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is redundant and is already mentioned in the Wikipedia article DXRAW 10:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already nominated for deletion on March 7, 2007. Result was "no consensus": Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_community
The result was delete. For future reference, streets can't be speedied. --Coredesat 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a small street whose sole claim to notability appears to be that it gives its name to a bus stop. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Refused CSD A7, contested prod. Mr Stephen 13:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear to meet WP:N; the article asserts this person has played in Barnet F.C., but only as a reserve. Tizio 13:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAmateur reserve player. Tangerines 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned band, near-orphan, lack of sources. kingboyk 14:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was unperson'd.--Wizardman 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A dictdef for a geek joke. This has no real potential for expansion (a bunch of sources have been added that supposedly show notability, but they're just pictures of notable people or fansites), and no real hope for an encyclopedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. -Splash - tk 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable visual artist. Sources lacking. Bus stop 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Not notable visual artist. Sources lacking.[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that she is notable outside of a small area. She appears to be like thousands of other high school students. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP, apparently reluctantly. The nominator appears to eventually agree on notability also. -Splash - tk 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an autobiography, it is biased and is written like an advertisment. It cites no sources and thus can not be proven credible or notable. Work must be done to fix the bias in this article and lack of verifiability. Vaniac 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The afd tags on the page were deleted by Marcmpc. Granted some work has been done, but the author seems to want to disrupt the AFD process. Vaniac 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved long piece by article subject / author to article talk page) - Richfife 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT to John Cena. -Splash - tk 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Subject has no credible independent biography, no significant recognized awards or honors, no Wide name recognition, no widely recognized contributions, no features in credible news media, no significant roles in any form of media, no fan base or a significant "cult" following. In addition, there are no reliable sources whatsoever for what little information there is (failing WP:A). Subject works for two companies both of whose WP stubs have been deleted. Suriel1981 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was an extremely contentious AfD for this article back in December. Harsh words and claims of bad faith flew, the nom withdrew his nomination, and it was tagged for cleanup and verification.
Three months later, however, virtually nothing has been done to clean up this article. Thus I am renominating the article for deletion for the following reasons:
A lot of people seem to hold this article dear to them, particularly on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, and WP:NOHARM grounds, as evidenced by the prior AfD, but honestly, due to the indiscriminate and speculative nature of the list, it's not meant for Wikipedia (though I'd fully support transwikiing this article to a more appropriate wiki if one exists), and the fact that this article has still not been cleaned up underscores this. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neen art. NawlinWiki 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable visual arts movement Bus stop 15:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected --Bubba hotep 11:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A team page already existed, and with the correct team name. See: Brooklyn Ward's Wonders Neonblak 15:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Nominator agrees it might be salvageable, and it is harsh indeed to delete something that predates the Internet because no sources for it are on the Internet. Cyberskull's remedy seems most appropriate for now. -Splash - tk 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This artielc elacs any sources, is plainly written by one of the creators, is non-neutral in tone, is original research from primary sources (check the connection logs image), but it might just be salvageable. Source it or lose it, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --Bubba hotep 11:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a dictionary definition to me. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protologism, WP:OR. Google hasn't heard of it; no evidence anyone has used this term. Deprodded with explanation on talk page. Weregerbil 15:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is poorly written and is completely plagarized. You can find the original article at http://www.kuvempu.ac.in/about.html and elsewhere on that site. Furthermore the notability of this school is in question Vaniac 16:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of this page as of now. To put it is very simply, this is the institution I have studied in. Me and my friends thought of creating a page of our institution on Wiki. Since, we are still in the process of deciding what has to go in it, the basic material was taken from the University page. But what is said remains a fact, irrespective of how or wherefrom it is presented.
Two more things. This page will enventually be managed by the institution authorities themselves. This will be "Official Wiki" of the Kuvempu University, or that is our fervent hope. Second, this is my first Wiki post and I had lot of problems understanding the codes. They dont seem like HTML. I dont know what is DB mentioned above means.
Give us some time, this will be a fine page.
The result was DELETE AND TRANSWIKI to WikiBooks. Herostratus 05:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Badly wikified, unsourced, possibly original research. - Sikon 14:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. The debate is divided, and some promise of work is offered. I find the arguments relating to "indiscriminacy" a little too sweeping, after all it would hope to discriminate between those that are and are not 'counter-culture'. I would think also that a poor definition is not a WP:NPOV issue but more a WP:NOR one. Someone might ping W.marsh... -Splash - tk 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article attempts to comprehensively list counterculture films. However the criteria for something being labelled a "counterculture film" is too subjective. There is no industry standard for labelling a film as a counterculture film and the list makes no attempt to even verify that any or all of these films are considered such. Therefore since the list inclusion is based in large part on editorial opinion the list article should be deleted as having POV issues in its list criteria. Note - this should not become a category, either, as it would suffer the same problems as a category. Dugwiki 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\talk 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced page about non-notable musician. Delete--Greatestrowerever 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 11:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No claim of notability. If there is one please provide it using citations. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an autobiography, not notable. Format is a mess, the article has a talk page for a reason. Biased. Vaniac 16:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Weak keep if sourced--I think it can be. DGG 06:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A COI article created by User:Stewartmilleronline, an account for Stewart Miller, the creator of the HD1080ip format. The only reference given for Miller's work is a web forum posting. Notability not shown. See entry 'Hd1080ip' at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Prodded, but prod was removed by 161.51.11.2 who may be the same as the author. EdJohnston 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE and make dab. Will do that. Am I good to you? -Splash - tk 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. See article history:
The result was REDIRECT. Her uneventful release undermines many of the keep votes, as her 15 minutes of fame are over. Right now her only notability is in connection with the incident, and that one article will certainly suffice. If she ever develops independent notability as a result of writing a book or whatever à la Jessica Lynch, we can always revive her article. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else think the last few above comments seem a bit like sock puppetry,or the same person on multiple accounts,particulary User:Elliskev and User:Sephiroth BCR.I think all thos keeps comments in a row like that are just a bit suspicious,but if not then I guess people just seem very strong about keeping this articleRodrigue 17:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, absolutely no content. - Bobet 10:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 11:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns: can't find evidence of the NCAAP award, and his role in "Shredderman Rules" appears to be minor. Strangerer (Talk) 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Wizardman 03:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this subject fails WP:BIO. Being interviewed is generally not a claim of notability. The other claim of notability is that of "starting the first plastic surgery boutique in Michigan"; what's a plastic surgery boutique exactly? Is that the same of a plastic surgery clinic? Tizio 17:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - copyvios should be blanked, edited, or flagged for deletion immediately. There is no assertion that the copyright on the page Founder and President is compatible with our GNU license. Bubba hotep 12:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't really establish notability, but it seems marginal for a speedy deletion. Can't find decent non-autobiographical sources to verify most of the information in the page. Author has left Wikipedia and so is unreachable for debate. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trial balloon given the way wp people cant get to libraries or avoid them, material which may take library work should have a loger than 5 day period--perhaps 2 weeks if a general college library will do, perhaps 2 months in cases like this. DGG 07:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Vietnamese magazine that has not necessarily proved its notability yet, certainly not in its first month. Page is basically ad copy Daniel Case 18:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by Nick (CSD-G1 : Something made up in school one day). ◄Zahakiel► 04:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism; Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Contested prod. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT to Billy Meier, it appears we're not deleting but the ... non-existence ... problem is very, uh ... real. -Splash - tk 17:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a Plejaran allegedly in contact with Billy Meier. Since this alien speaks only to Meier, any discussion about her is best kept on Meier's page. The, er, character does not seem otherwise notable enough for her own entry on Wikipedia (especially not such a remarkably credulous report on her remarkable life). Sorry for marking this "biography", but what else is it? Phiwum 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per consensus of established editors. --Coredesat 05:10, 7 April 2007 (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)) . |
Was nominated for speedy deletion under CSD-A7, but declined as contains an assertion if notability of you look very carefully - that the guy created a yoga technique. There is no assertion of notability for the yoga technique that I can see, so I'd like community input on the entire article. Originally created at Vagyoga, moved to title claimed by article intro. My opinion is reserved. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 12:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For fear that co-hosting an event with the talking corpse formerly known as Joan Rivers is a claim to notability, I bring forth this article via WP:COI/N. Other than that unverified claim, there's nothing to recommend this article as it stands. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. -Splash - tk 17:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability. I came across the page because of the insertion of links to places like the author's store. There is only one substantial editor, and as a result the page may simply need cleaning up and removal of the parts that are basically adverts. (provided that the author is indeed notable) —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. There is a valid debate over the claim of notability, but clearly none of the deleters are persuaded of the case at the conclusion of the discussion. Lakes' final comment is especially telling. -Splash - tk 17:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Person does not meet notability requirements ↪Lakes (Talk) 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First if the rankings need to cited then a reference tag is nessessary not nominating an article for deletion. Second, an interview isn't being cited here. Nowhere in their guidelines in the PWI 500 mentioned. Your opinion is that the magazine simply prints whatever information they get from independent wrestlers, the editors say otherwise. I'm not going to debate the merits of PWI, however I do believe it's extremely shortsighted to disregard its publication as unreliable. The PWI almanac for example is considered an extremly valuble resource. Similarly almost every major wrestler has an award or ranking using the PWI 500 or Years, should these be removed as well ? Your completely overlooking the fact that a major publication printed such a wrestler as a top competitor in the independent circuit. How is this any different from the Wrestling Observer or any other wrestling newsletter ? MadMax 02:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think he meets any of the general criteria of WP:BIO and am unconvinced by his level of contribution to the wrestling scene. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. As Butseriously states, verifiability is not the sole criterion for the inclusion of an article. Being included on a list, however reliable it may be, is not a sufficient assertion of notability. yandman 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP. Unnotable company. This group is not a authoritized United States accreditor, and thus its accreditation is meaningless.[55] That means this is a company. Unnotable, undescriptive, no claims of notability, etc. The website is registered to "John Doe" and has no phone number, email address, or mail address. How can you have an article without sources? Arbustoo 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and protect from recreation. I forgot to close this AfD when I deleted the article. --Coredesat 07:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable visual artist. Bus stop 20:30, 2 April 2007 (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)) . |
keep: A significant contemporary artist who has exhibited in major spaces, appears in major art magazines. Marbruk 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC) — marbruk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: There are no sources in the article except for a personal web site. Bus stop 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Just Google Miltos Manetas and you will find articles about him from the NYTimes to the Interview Magazine. The same about Neen. Ii's a pitty that people in Wikipedia become enemies of what they don't understand: Neen is an idea they own to embrace and of course they should stp pretend that it doesn't exist, that's ridiculous because Neen can be found in so many publication, exhibitions, blogs etc. AlainLa 22:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) — AlainLa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What other proff you want for that than the fact that artists- who exhibit internationally and are reviewed in art magazines- are members of Neen?.
AlainLa 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None-noteable person, poorly sourced article. Jtrainor 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Manetas is an important international artist. You should simply Google his name and see for yourself how much he has influenced artists who worked with videogames after him (such as Cory Arcangel and others) as well as more classic school contemporary artists such as Maurizio Cattelan ( who made his Wrong Gallery on Maneta's ElectronicOrphanage and different contemporary painters who are working on the same subjects of tech life as Manetas did long time ago. Also, the article is noy poorly sourced, there are references in all kind of Art World sources as well as NYTimes, Wired Magazine etc. Door64 17:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC) I will work on the reference side too.. the article for Manetas should stay in Wikipedia..Door64 — Door64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep: Miltos Manetas and his work questions directly the form and content of both what art does and who the artist is in a contemporary context. As a cultural theorist I have cited Manetas' work and philosophy on several occasions in my own work, referring to it as a signal project within digital media cutlure. As others theorists and critics have noted, Manetas' on-going metacritique of Art's persistent rhetorics of representation places his agenda in the shadow of Walter Benjamin's Critique of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (though for Manetas it our Age of Digital Replication), and the now canonical investigations of depthlessness and reproduciblity of Warhol, Andreas Gursky or Jeff Wall. In this, Manetas' ongoing project is a kind an archaelogy of surfaces --of information as a surface, of painting as a surface, of icons as surfaces-- and their ultimate recombinacy in the terms of this shared status. Further, Manetas' project is to displace (without the ponderous self-reflexion of a "critical cultural producer") the singularity of the artist as the originator of the mastertstroke in a visual landscape for which content is no longer an economy of scarcity. Quite the opposite of turning art into a branding exercise, Manetas' work is hardly unique in exploring the arbitrary signifier, the afterimage, and the autonomy of affect in our liquid modernity. That said, the references to Manetas' CV that others have made is valid, but incomplete. To be clear, I can imagine to appropriate reason for the deletion of Miltos Manetas or Neen from Wikipedia other than the idiosyncratic miscomprehension of their agendas on the part of a single editor. Benjamin Bratton 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC) — Benjaminbratton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Here: http://www.manetas.com/press/ you can find as many press references on the work of Miltos Manetas as you need. If you search for him on Amazon you can find his book about Neen ( http://www.amazon.com/Neen-Miltos-Manetas/dp/8881586010/ref=sr_1_2/002-0898025-0774437?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175913997&sr=8-2 ) published by a famous art publisher in Italy. If you search at Artnet you will find a lot about him: http://www.artnet.com/ag/fulltextsearch.asp?searchstring=Miltos+Manetas Here http://www.manetas.com/press/nytimes/index.htm is a NYTimes article about his work on videogames. There are HUDREDS of such sourses online. Are we seriously discussing the FACT that Manetas is a very well known artist? I invited some of the people- all art proffesionals that have worked with Manetas during these years, to write something here so expect some illustrious opinions.Door64
I just add many sources to the Manetas page. check nowDoor64
The result was redirected to Bill Bradley (baseball player). REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate page exists. See: Bill Bradley (baseball player). Neonblak 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close as disruption. We have no evidence that Lagunabeacher (talk · contribs), Danielle at MTV Europe (talk · contribs), Carla at MTV Europe16 (talk · contribs) work for MTV, or that what they claim about the subject of this article is true, and given the regularity of these nominations, and the single-purpose accounts, it seems more likely that this is just the work of a single person intent on causing disruption rather than a genuine attempt to discuss whether Wikipedia should have an article on a subject. Uncle G 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Daniel Brandt can go to so much effort to get rid of his article, then I will on behalf of the subject of this one. I work for MTV Europe, and she's specifically requesting deletion of this. She claims "she's not a proper celeb", i.e. not notable enough for your standards. Danielle at MTV Europe 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by DragonflySixtyseven. WjBscribe 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologisms consisting of dictionary definitions and unverifiable usage claims. No reliable sources cited whatsoever. Dancter 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus - default keep --Bubba hotep 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that I don't know much about the juggling world. Possibly these two are very famous within that world. The article reads like promotional material and was, in fact, originally written by someone associated with them (see talk page for details). Google doesn't seem to have much and the book referenced appears to be self published by this website. IrishGuy talk 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A RESPONSE This juggling act is just as important a listing as other juggling acts that are on wikipedia such as Passing Zone, another juggling duo. Doubble Troubble can be found on IMDB as producing two feature films. Their debut film Olive Juice, which was added to Wikipedia by someone else, even states how the film was one of the most important independent films to come out of Florida. In addition, search through the International Jugglers assocaition and you will see their competition records as well as their current standing as Ring Passing World Record Holders... enough alone to warrant entry into Wikipedia. The articles is also written very concisely and objectively and is less of a promotional page than that of Passing Zone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardBrooksbank (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
In ADDITION I believe also that the Book mentioned "Virtuosos of Juggling" was written by juggling historian Karl Heinz-Zeithen and published by Renegade Juggling, both independent and not associated with Doubble Troubble. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RichardBrooksbank (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 12:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable college a cappella group; fails WP:MUSIC; delete. Dylan 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freelancer: Combat Evolved. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Freelancer mod. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I am uncertain of the encyclopedic value of all these YYYYs (Mormonism) articles I am only nominating these two. Even to the subject of Mormonism these are of questionable value - the LDS church was not organized until 1830, and at the earliest the movement could be said to have begun in 1820 with the First Vision. Detailing the activities of Joseph Smith (or others) prior to that date really can't be said to be part of the whole Mormonism movement. Arkyan • (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note from author (Martin_Wheeler) -- Glastonbury resident; academic; and publisher. Neologism it most certainly is; and neologisms don't easily or quickly enter the written record. For non-residents of this town, terms like 'the purpleskirt effect' or 'the purpleskirt community' are probably a little mystifying; but for the sociology researchers from Japan, Canada, Germany who have investigated the community in recent years whilst preparing their theses [usually available as monoprints only], these terms are valid and meaningful. Personally, I've been aware of the usage for the past ten years at least. It's a moot point whether the clothing store of the same name in L.A. picked up the term or not from a visit to the town (many film and TV 'personalities' visit the town from London specifically to buy 'purpleskirt' items in the town's various clothing boutiques).
Martin Wheeler You're obviously hell-bent on deleting the article -- so go ahead. You just lost a contributor who preferred to give Wikip(a)edia the benefit of the doubt in the rows raging about the competence of its edtors -- but I now see that my academic colleagues are absolutely correct.
I leave you the following to ponder over (extract from one of the most highly respected academic lists):
>> Wikipedia welcomes experts as authors, but contributions are >> judged on their merit, not on their origin. I think the >> opposite model is worth trying, if only to understand why it >> doesn't work. > > CZ also judges contributions on merit, not origin--perhaps moreso than > Wikipedia does, since Wikipedians so often poorly judge the contributions of > people outside their inner circle. But when there's an intractable > dispute, and a content decision has to be made, it won't be made by a > 17-year-old "administrator," but by a real expert. Moreover, because we > actually recognize real-world expertise, instead of ignoring it, we can > enlist experts to approve articles. Wikipedia can't do so, because it is > anathema to Wikipedians to recognize expertise officially.
Says it all, really, doesn't it? (And btw -- I don't have to justify my credentials to people like yourself, and the innuendo of your remarks. If Canadians have such easy access to thesis abstracts, it should be a piece of cake for you to trace the afferent theses. One of them, is, in fact, from a Canadian University.) A bon entendeur, salut. Martin Wheeler
The result was delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page does not assert notability on a scale deserving of an encyclopedia. He may be well known on a local scale but an artist should be world famous or at least nationally famous in order to have an article.--Joebengo 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. This was previously tagged as a PROD and nobody has gotten around to closing it yet; so I am now. Sources (or source if you will) is very trivial and doesn't meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod expired. The subject looks like a non-notable Bishop of a church, with no outside sources or referneces. I found one source in the The Tribune mentioning, but he was not the subject, just mentioned casually ([58]). A comprehensive search on LexisNexis provided zero results. Anyway, he appears not to fulfill WP:N, and the article reads like a resume or timeline without any context. I say either delete or merge with Mar Thoma Church. Rockstar915 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Very notable.
The result was Keep per disambiguation page transformation -- Bubba hotep 12:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable term; apparently means "commentary", but there is no explanation of why this is in any way a special term in Islam. Prod removed. Brianyoumans 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of a reason, I was testing WP:TWINKLE, anyway this article lacks notablity as far as I can tell, and at the very least does not assert notability with citations. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jim Gary. (Apologies to anyone waiting on this to get resolved, looks like it got lost in the shuffle somehow!) Arguments by single-purpose accounts aside, there is simply no convincing argument here that the term passes either WP:NEO or WP:N. What to merge is an editorial decision, history will be left intact for those interested in doing so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable term in the visual arts Bus stop 19:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable converts to Christianity