< October 13 | October 15 > |
---|
The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no references found or provided supporting notability, therefore WP:MADEUP NeilN 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no references found or provided supporting notability, therefore WP:MADEUP NeilN 00:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a paper someone wrote for an elementary school assignment. Full of POV and unlikely appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Rackabello 23:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and not notable. Nothing except for author and working title are apparently known. Mr.Z-man 23:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted by W.marsh per nominator's request at his talk page. -- JLaTondre 12:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to have this page deleted so I can move another page there. We have already discussed it here at Warhawk revert war. Warhawk (disambiguation) has already been made with the exact same thing.
The result was speedy deleted and redlink protected. El_C 11:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article, which I have tried to mark for speedy deletion, is about a high school teacher. It makes no claims of notability, has no sources, and frankly I'm not sure if it's even a real person. Edward321 23:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 20:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a living rabbi that does not appear especially notable. No reliable secondary sources have been put forward to establish notability or verify any of the information in the article beyond IMBD, a blog and a class listing. — Coren (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of "sources", none of which establish notability, even in the aggregate. Many of the so-called sources do not even mention the rabbi! Or are written by him. I see a lot of special pleading, and a lot of "but he's an Orthodox Rabbi". I see a lot of accusations of bad faith, and a lot of cries of wikilawyering.
Orthodox Rabbis are not automatically notable. Whether the topic of an article is an Orthodox Rabbi or a Buddhist dancer, the criterion are and MUST be the same. — Coren (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
notability. 'Nuff said.--Bightme 99 00:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High school stadium with no claim to notability. (I might have recommended merge, but the article is currently devoid of actual content that could be merged). — Coren (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
advertisement, mainly consists of a list of every Nickelodeon Halloween special ever made Caldorwards4 22:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how is it advertisment, its a nick article Wikialexdx 5:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
if you want to delete it, fine delete it, its a block on nickeldeon thats annual. Wikialexdx 7:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The result was speedily deleted as A7 by Number 57. --Coredesat 00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable local youth swim team Drdisque 22:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I note that those supporting deletion did so before the additions by Thomjakobsen.--Kubigula (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as it is neither original research nor unverifable, yet can be made into a decent stub. Bearian 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the article is a clear violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. I attempted to find even some cursory source material in an effort to expand on this topic, but was unable to find almost anything but Wikipedia mirrors. This probably isn't a hoax, considering there are news archives with mentions of the animal, but it obviously never caught on enough to maintain notability. A lack of sources to be used for verification and a doubtful notability in modern agriculture leads me to think this should simply be deleted. VanTucky Talk 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unencyclopedic article on a self-published writer who fails WP:BIO. The product of a single purpose account, it is largely lifted from the author biography provided at Xlibris. Victoriagirl 21:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it fails WP:BK and is little more than a copy of text provided at the novel's Xlibris page :
The result was Delete. Having read the arguments put forward by the two most heavily involved parties, Butterfly0fdoom (talk · contribs) and Rsrikanth05 (talk · contribs), I took the decision to delete the article. My basis for this was primarily on the non-notability of the article's subject, which was judged according to Wikipedia's Notability Guideline.
However, I sympathise with the articles creator; Wikipedia does, in no way, aim to eliminate every article on non-Apple MP3 players - far from it. Nevertheless, Notability must be establised through reliable sources, unless the general standards of the encyclopedia should fall.
Whilst this article must not be re-created unless it satisfied Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines, particularly such key ones as WP:N and WP:RELY, I would invite the article's original author to take the article's text, and develop it with reliable, third-party sources (in accordance with WP:RELY), in order for us to assert that it meets Wikipedia's basic article standards on Notability. Rsrikanth05, if you wish to contact me for the article's content, feel free to email me using the details located here. Kind regards, Anthøny ん 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person that created the article (who is also the primary editor of the article) has failed to wikify his article and address the notability of the product he has created an article for. Butterfly0fdoom 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me a few more days, as my internet is problematic, I'll add more content, and try my best to wikify the article. --Rsrikanth05 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are against it, after all it is another PMP like the Zen, iPod or Zune, infact, it has a few more functions and features, as compared to the others. Also, I'll be glad to expand the Transcend Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsrikanth05 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC) --Rsrikanth05 08:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC) What do I need to do in order to make it natable? I know it can be made notable. --Rsrikanth05 08:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Guys, please give me a a few more days, as I have found plaaces which can be used for notability.--Rsrikanth05 16:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is innovative, it is the first mp3 player with a trackwheel. Unless you think that is stupid. The iPod was NOT the first PMP. Also, I am a consumer, who can make the product notable. You say it is not popular, thus it should be deleted. The notabilty article states nothing about popularity. --Rsrikanth05 12:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Till you came along, no one said anything about deleting the article. Also take a look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PortableApps.com --Rsrikanth05 10:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has any PMP ad a baery life of longer an 18 ours? Een e ipod does no, well inase you did no know, http://techbloggin.com/category/tsonic840/ Hae a look --Rsrikanth05 18:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The T.sonic 840 at full volume, without the screensaver gives one 30 hours, the iPod gives only at 50% volume. Why are you agianst the T.sonic anyway? You do not like it, then ignore it. --09:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Also your link was from an Apple fan site, and all Apple fan sites over-rate the iPod for what it is. It lacks loads of features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsrikanth05 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Alos, David tagged the article for Reference, not natabilty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsrikanth05 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it if you want to. Go ahead, i have a copy of the source anyway. I'll add the exact same details on to the Transcend page. --Rsrikanth05 07:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Also, this might not be notable to you, but the T.sonic also, acts as a PC lock, and boot device, you can lock your PC with it,a dn also boot your PC from it. --Rsrikanth05 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ☎ 09:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A biased article and a neologism as well (when saying that it refers to Slavic population as well). I don't see a point of having an article about this. bogdan 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mixtape, prod tag removed. Speciate 21:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DEL#REASON ("Reasons for deletion include … subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline"), no reliable sources can be found to prove notability for this non-notable character. Seraphim Whipp 21:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity spam, in all likelihood. Unreferenced bio of a musician whose Google returns are the article in question and a myspace page. Nothing on All Music Guide. Entirely the work of one redlink author who one must suspect is the subject. A Traintalk 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Emergent" says it all. Not notable, and unsourced to boot. — Coren (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software with no reliable sources - at best it should be merged with The Sword Project similar to de:The Sword Project, since it's merely a non-notable front-end. Halo 20:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. @pple complain 18:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. This method has neither been published nor used anywhere. Yellowbeard 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help) (access permissions required, so alternatively google cache thereof in html) or http://www.iiia.csic.es/People/enric/papers/egov.pdf. ((cite web))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help) or google cache therof in html). There are lots of limited preview Google book results. If you can't find sources for this, it is because you aren't trying. GRBerry 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to spring completely from the imagination of its author. It's completely without sources and it reads like make-belief nonsense. Note especially, the last section of the article, which links it to another article of the same author, of which he admits is completely OR (see this Afd). I am under the impression that we're dealing with a user who likes to create hoax articles here. Atlan (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional page on a non-notable sporting event. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable middle school and no reliable sources found to assert notability. Tomj 19:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A neologism. Three ghits[59]. Malcolmxl5 19:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandahl 02:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Alder is an actor who has appeared in theatre, TV and film. However, his work appears not to be of significance or importance except possibly the leading role that in an independent horror film that has not been released. He had a minor role in one episode of Eastenders. Here is his IMDB page. A google search[60] turns up very little in the way of reliable sources; here is a single independent review of his work as a comedian. He has no coverage in UK national media such as the BBC[61], The Guardian[62] or The Sun[63]. I propose that this article be deleted as the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability per WP:NOTE. Malcolmxl5 18:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources found to establish notability Toddstreat1 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school. Before anybody asks: I didn't PROD it because there have been quite a few edits recently, and it would just get removed. I didn't speedy it because admin's usually decline high schools, and recommend AfD instead. Rjd0060 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 01:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents no sources and does not define what is considered a "highrise" building. Also, as so many construction projects are going on constantly, the information changes so fast that it is very difficult to keep the page up to date. KFP (talk | contribs) 18:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without redirecting. A redirect here would be inherently non-neutral. --Coredesat 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, this article is very Christian-centric and not particularly notable. It should either be redirected to Religious text or changed to discuss only the Christian sense vis-a-vis the Gospel of John with a clear disambiguation statement at the top guiding readers to the religious text article for more general information on the topic. — DIEGO talk 18:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability for these minor battles. List also lacks reliable sources. Content is entirely plot summary. EEMeltonIV 17:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ☎ 09:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely in-universe, except for a laundry list of random appearances in the games. Only sources are two from 'warcraftrealms.com'. Quite a bit of the article is recited plot summary. Any relevant information could be merged to a more important article, and taken together, fails WP:FICT. David Fuchs (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G7 (author request). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to have been notable, Google search turns up 9 hits. The EL in the article are poor, one I was unable to access, the other was just to EMI's web site (they bought the Yatata catalogue). Pigman 03:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thought it helped map things out a bit, but deletion is fine. Thanks for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazsxdcfv1s (talk • contribs) 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (although apparently "feeble") - trim it please. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gaming channel and website, with no real assertion of notability. The few sources that are used are mostly trivial, and are mainly press releases stating things like the launch of the channel. None are placed in text, so it's not directly obvious what each source is supposed to be supporting. Almost all of the author's edits are to this article, or placing links to the site on other articles. Drat (Talk) 02:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable non existent album. Delete. Rehevkor 23:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This game supplement has no independent sources to demonstrate that it is notable, its plot/game summary does not provide context or sourced analysis of the book’s impact or historical significance, of which there is no evidence. Gavin Collins 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge → CHERUB --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this whole series of children's spy books is not well-sourced, the notability of the individual books is highly doubtful, but the notability of a list of its characters is difficult to prove. Already PRODded and de-PRODded without explanations. Goochelaar 07:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was transwiki to Wiktionary. KrakatoaKatie 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the term can be verified by reliable sources, its a neologism. Sasha Callahan 06:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Listed only for his involvement in an unremarkable criminal case. Not only is Wikipedia not a newspaper, it is especially not a ten-year-old newspaper! Dybryd 04:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to keep this article but I can't find anything online related to this organization. Without WP:V and WP:RS to support the existence of "Buddhist Nation" much less its notability, I've sadly brought it here. If anyone can find more substantial information to support this organization article, I'd be open to withdrawing this AfD nomination. Pigman 17:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandahl 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem notable. No assertion of notability from independent reliable sources. Should this be CSD? Flex (talk/contribs) 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a non-notable person. The edit history is also almost exclusively done by the user who is the subject of the article. This is my first AFD request so I apologise for any errors I have made in the process. --Anthony5429 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to lack in notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to lack in notability. Was nominated for speedy under G11 previously, which I declined, so I leave it up to the AFD jury to decide. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no evidence of notability provided, no valid keep arguments put forth, WP:SNOW as delete. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article, created by User:AGNPH, contains no assertion of notability, but because it has been deleted via AfD before (which I saw after the PROD was removed, my mistake), it is brought here. The article is essentially a run-down of the group's history, as copied from the WikiFur article, with no WP:RS to indicate how or why the site is notable. Note that the article is different from the previously deleted version; however, there isn't much in the way of encyclopedic information in this version. I recommend to delete. Kinu t/c 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft, content fork. Blueboy96 16:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
coment but still keep If we put it there it will overtake the article. Real ensyclopedias don't have everything on one page. 14:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC) MJN SEIFER
The result was After consultation with German and Czech wikipedians, including Martin-Vogel, RalfR, and Juan de Vojnikov, I conclude that this is definitely a hoax. Delete, delete all related images, consider blocking Zebraic as hoaxster. DS 00:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no record about the existence of this village, google shows nothing, maps of Czech Republic show nothing, there is no reference anywhere, even the transportation planner (idos.cz) doesn't know this place and I am pretty sure that town with 2,314 must have record and must be on the map (even smallers are). I think this is a pretty fine hoax. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there was a gut feeling that this town didn't exist ... Sciurinæ 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second: I am the only editor on this article? I suppose I am--I watch many of my contributions, and have seen little contributed to this article outside of my own edits. I am certainly the original creator for it. It strikes me as strange that I was the only one who ever really edited this article, but seeing as it pertains to a small town in the Czech Republic, it is understandable. As the only editor of this article, I can only defend myself, because, if it is a hoax, then it is a well-done hoax of which I was not aware. What I mean is, if it is a hoax, it exists independently and prior to this article, and I have merely been an unaware vehicle for its propagation in creating this article. If Hevstäf does not exist in any capacity (which at this point becomes an infinitely difficult thing to prove, and brings up more questions than it answers), then the "hoax" is severely, severely elaborate.
Third: Since I am the "sole author" of the article, I know the burden of proof lies on me. Has anyone looked up the books/articles I have referenced? Please look at these books: # Haywood, John (2005). Historical Atlas of Ancient Civilizations. London: Penguin Books, Ltd., 90-91. ISBN 0-141-01448-2.
Fourth: Again, as the "sole author", I'm very much aware of the implications of a hoaxed entry allegation. Please look at my contributions to Wikipedia. I am not the most active member, certainly, but I have made a considerable number of edits, none of which are hoaxes. Furthermore, please consider what I, or anyone, would hope to gain in creating a hoax such as the one you suspect is Hevstäf. I don't see it. What the Hell would the point be of such a hoax? And if I'm the "hoaxer", where are my other hoaxes? I suppose that that is a bit peripheral to the argument at hand. I just ask kindly that you consider it, because I fear that my user account and character are going to come directly under fire because of this.
Fifth: As I said on my talk page, I have visited the town. That counts as nothing, I know, so I implore those who live near the coordinates to go visit the map coordinates and see what you see. What you should see is a town there.
Sixth: The coat of arms image was originally created by; I had drawn it in my field book, and recreated it from my visit. The site, www.hevstaf.info, has more to say about the coat-of-arms and what it means (look in its gallery). I also created the map, from a public domain map of the Czech republic here on Wikipedia. By "created", I mean all that I did was put a little dot indicating the location of Hevstäf on a pre-created map of the Czech Republic. I did this for obvious reasons: To lend a visual aid to anyone who wanted to know where the town was. Many of these articles on little towns such as this have maps like this one! I don't deny any of this! But I thought that I had adequately referenced my sources. Zebraic 19:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as notable enough. Bearian 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that this article does not pass WP:N, but there have been several TV appearances and suchlike, so I didn't feel that I could just tag it for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. I'd like the community's comments on this one. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and speculative. The article mentions a "private press release" with no further way to verify the information. The album is a year away from release, so the crystal ball effect is in play. It's probably too early for this article yet. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, author request by blanking. —Verrai 20:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable and non-notable TV journalist. Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:N. Being on TV doesn't make him notable as that's his job. Nothing appears to make him stand out from any other TV journalist. Initial speedy request declined and changed to a Prod. Creator removed prod with no reason given -- WebHamster 15:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I began to expand this out, but on second thought, it looks like this drink product simply isn't notable enough. The three borderline sources in the article are all I can easily find. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 17:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable; doesn't even have a Spanish-language wiki link. Vanity and unprofessional. Ich (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW keep. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 14:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Queried speedy delete request ((db-spam)). Anthony Appleyard 14:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 03:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax, (Ed malone is a character in the novel), and the article has no sources a brief google search found no evidence for the existance of this guy, but I did find lots of references to the character in the book. I took the unusual step of coming directly to afd rather than discussing this with the author because WP:HOAX requires it, and I agree with this. Arch dude 14:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ☎ 09:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see also this AFD for several similar lists. All of the same reasons those articles were deleted apply to this list as well. indiscriminate collection of loosely and unassociated items, completely unreferenced and chock-full of original research. Otto4711 13:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ridernyc 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was speedy delete tagged ((db-nocontext)), but it seems to have plenty of content and notability to me. Anthony Appleyard 13:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smells like a web neologism to me that never caught on. About 195 unique ghits. Of course the content in its current form has to go, as Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. MER-C 12:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Convirtualization is a Neologism" - make that a protologism with only 2 ghits. The article is Hfoxwell (talk · contribs), you know what that means. MER-C 12:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Malcolmxl5 00:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A baby mentor is a very new term" and not a widely used one for that. The article creator was Babymentor (talk · contribs), so its vanispamcruftisement as well. MER-C 12:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this will be a long one. First, the article came from WikiPilipinas, a website for Filipino information and taste. Due to their niche, they are more lenient in notability standards than we do. Though it passes WikiPilipinas standard, the article does not pass Wikipedia standard. Second, towns are inherently notable, baranggays are not towns. Rather, they are parts of a town. Third, there are thousands of baranggays in our country. It will be a bad idea for Wikipedia to have all of them unless something REALLY interesting is in a particular baranggay. My suggestion is to delete the article and redirect it to Bacnotan, La Union Lenticel (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason is the person is not so notable and even the name of the article is wrong. Amartyabag TALK2ME 11:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was speedied ((db-nocontext)), but has been lengthened; but may now be "NN videogame monster". Anthony Appleyard 10:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Strong Keep. Phgao 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC). W.marsh 14:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comments on AfD for Eric Hazebroek (uses self-citing websites, no outside sources, also coming up are other bands that fail notability guidelines) Phgao 10:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was Delete per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. However, a redirect link you probably his most notable role can be made, but according to the article the more notable bit by him doesn't even had an article, although a possible redirect link to The Saturnine can be made.--JForget 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uses self-citing websites, no outside sources, also coming up are other bands that fail notability guidelines Phgao 10:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 12:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to describe the achievements of a modern-day Edison. Unfortunately, in the absence of any external verification, this seems likely to be a work of fantasy, as neither the name of its subject, or "Starvoice System Corporation", the first company they supposedly sold, have any Google hits, something which seems unlikely for a billionaire entrepreneur. Unless corroborating evidence can be supplied to back up the contents of this article, I suggest deletion. The Anome 10:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
School that is non-notable Phgao 10:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination -- I am not nominating for deletion, but only assisting an editor with this second nomination (per this request). Original AFD closed with no consensus, I am going to assume that the article is being re-nominated due to the same rationale as the first nomination -- namely, fails notability and contains no reliable secondary sources. No improvement or addition of reliable sources since the first nomination. -- Blaxthos (talk · contribs · logs) 07:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to The Dresden Files. Per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. This game hasn't even been officially announced. However, deleting would not be optimal, since discussion of the proposed game ought to be mentioned at the novels' article, and in the future the article can be restarted if/when it's clearer the game will actually be coming out.Cúchullain t/c 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The expected future release of this game is not notable; the article itself has no content, context or analysis, despite being in development since 2004. --Gavin Collins 09:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comments After Cleanup by Ukulele My biggest issue with the article is that there's no firm release date for the product. If it had a definite target date things would look more relevant. My second biggest issue is the sourcing. Although you've made a great effort, it's hard work because the product isn't in release and has no release date. There isn't a lot of coverage and the coverage that exists is either first-party or shakey. Take for example, another Sci-Fi Channel propoerty turned RPG, Stargate Stargate SG-1 (roleplaying game)... In my google results for "Stargate RPG" [84] the first two pages you see the official publisher, mentions of award nominations, fan pages for the RPG, player forums, retailer product list, etc. For Dresden RPG, in the first 3 pages of results I'm finding 18 first party sources, 3 wiki-entries, 4 message board / livejournal entries, 4 entries about the Dresden Files TV Series and 1 link about the FATE system. This just tells me that the game isn't ready for its own article at this time.--Torchwood Who? 14:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandahl 02:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, merely a dictionary definition. No indication of widespread use, 32 unique ghits. MER-C 08:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as violation of WP:CRYSTAL--JForget 01:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:CRYSTAL. MrStalker talk 08:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protologism, dictionary definition. 9 ghits. MER-C 08:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I can find plenty of hits in searches, I can't find any which would afford this organisation notability in an encyclopaedic sense, thereby failing WP:V and WP:N Russavia 08:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete based on below discussion, but I am making an editorial decision to redirect to Smoking#Smoking_in_culture, since this article has been around for a while and seems like a plausible search term. Redirect should not be undone with seriously addressing the below concerns (namely, lack of references). W.marsh 14:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the page should be deleted, however it has been under attack by a single Wikipedia editor who repeatedly redirects the page to his own, without incorporating any of two years of edits by multiple editors, and when called on it, removes parts of the article to make it appear to have a different purpose than it truly does. We're trying to get it sourced, but his edits now become antagonistic. Bad faith use of WP:OWN, and I would like the value of this article decided by the Wikipedia community at large, rather than a single editor with an axe to grind. Chris 08:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been tagged as lacking sources and having generally poor article structure (and for a time essay-like content) since August of last year, and the only substantial contrubtions have been made by Chris himself. There was a conflict between me and Chris where I tried to make him either improve this article or to help work on the culture section of the main article smoking, by redirecting smoking culture there. So far, nothing has been achieved except creating bluster on talk:smoking culture. The latest edit, which provoked this AfD, was to insist on upholding the questionable attempt to limit the article to tobacco smoking, a process initiated by the since banned pro-smoking, pro-tobacco POV-pusher Naacats.
The biggest problem in this conflict is that Chris views this as an issue of "his" article vs. "my" article instead of focusing on content or verifiability. Personal prestige, not content quality and respect for readers, has been the re-occuring theme throughout this squabble.
Peter Isotalo 08:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article emphasizes a smoking as a culture (or subculture) in society. Cultural examples are provided at smoking, but the author of smoking culture is not referring to mere examples in culture. The author is emphasizing a marked subculture of its own. Author emphasizes specialized and distinct artifacts designed for and supporting a culture not likely to be used by a mainstream culture. Mindlurker 09:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep without a clear consensus after many days at AfD. A suggestion to rename or move must be made elsewhere. Bearian 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the article has been created by someone from the Association of Cricket Statisticians (ACS) in breach of this concept, particularly as the notability of the ACS itself is questionable. The article attempts to show that there is an "issue" about cricket statistics when in fact there is not. Wisden is the definitive and authoritative source for all cricket statistics and is universally recognised as such; the ACS is a fringe group and the "issue" itself only exists among a small number of its own members, most of whom recognise Wisden. The ACS has no authority re the status of matches and its opinions carry no weight at all; any cricket writer's opinion counts just as much. The writer of the article is using Wikipedia to promote the ACS. As it says on this edit screen: "Wikipedia is not an advertising service". Fiddlers Three 07:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Whilst I think that it is a pity that ACS have gone against tradition as to which matches are accepted as first-class, and hence have come up with different career totals for some players, one can't ignore that their figures have been adopted by many authorities. Both of the major online cricket sites, CricketArchive and Cricinfo, use their figures, and most Wiki player biographies take their statistics from one or other of those sites. Like it or not, ACS are far more than a "fringe group". The article is I think useful, factual and does not push a particular POV. I can't see any promotion of the ACS in it. I should add that I am not an ACS member and have no personal axe to gring. JH (talk page) 08:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jbeach sup 04:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The listed sources don't confirm this game's existence, and the first source is dated from March 2006, before The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was released, so it can't be considered reliable enough (plans can change considerably in that huge a space of time). I have tried finding a confirmation of this game's existence, but only some speculation from fansites and bulletin boards, as I found here. L337 kybldmstr 07:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fails BLP, also only notable for one event Phgao 07:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 01:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fails BLP as it does not cite sources and I am not sure to its truthfulness. Phgao 07:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--JForget 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This person competed in one olympic games and came nowhere. There are no independent sources, only the placing tables for the event. Those are sources for the event, not the individual. Of the five Google hits for Thomas M. Jacobs +skier, there are only Wikipedia, mirrors and lists. No independent sources cited, and I can't find any. Cruftbane 06:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Phgao 06:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
references are only self references, thus non notable website and should technically be A7 speedied Phgao 06:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Phgao 10:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable school Phgao 05:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Closed as Keep Phgao 10:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. The Placebo Effect 06:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable school ... Phgao 05:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Verrai 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable school.... <end> Phgao 05:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 14:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable primary school, a least as far as my internet searching skills can reach. SolidPlaid 05:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable biography, actually it reads more of an obituary. There is enough of an assertation to fail CSD notability guidelines and so here we are. I can't find any reliable sources outside of the external links in the article that assert Parker's significant contribution to either baseball or education. Keegantalk 05:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked online, there is nothing notable about this school for 5 to 7 year olds. SolidPlaid 05:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Spartaz Humbug! 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional])) |
delete-No notability, no evidence of it JJJ999 05:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about an apparently nn video game Carlossuarez46 05:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a neologism. I'm not aware of this term being used to describe any subgenres of punk, and Google doesn't turn anything up. Chubbles 04:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted Wikipedia is not for promotional use, Youtube, while a notable website, does not imply merit in the assertation of notability because the user is award winning within the site itself. No external reliable sources of notability to be had. Keegantalk 05:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of Notability Wisdom89 04:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted by Anthony Appleyard. W.marsh 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a procedural nomination as a prod was removed without comment. The reason given on the prod was "no evidence of coverage by published sources", i.e. not-notable. Malcolmxl5 04:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 17:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated prod. No obvious notability for this executive beyond a nice mention in her alumni magazine. (Creator is Wren21 (talk · contribs), an apparent sockpuppet of WOverstreet (talk · contribs), indef blocked for incivility.) Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks WP:N Chealer 04:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, neologisms, or dictionary entries. Pick one. shoy 03:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 13:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a hoax Eric444 03:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't an advert for a specific service. I wanted to speedy it, but to be honest I can't justify that. Opinions chaps? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Spartaz Humbug! 17:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube celebrity. Appeared in a notable YouTube film, but notability is not inherited. shoy 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the following for the same reason:
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Okay, we have a director. Great. We still have no actors, filming information (as required by WP:MOVIE), or release date. shoy 03:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, despite the claims of notability which look like they were put in there in order to forestall an AfD. Corvus cornix 03:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I wish to query what appears to be a inconsistent policy re deletions by wikipedia.
Essentially this appears to be based on a unstated perception that IPTV shows are less notable than say cable or community tv shows.
Now if wikipedia doesn't want to regard media of this kind as notable so be it but it should have a specific policy stating why this is so. Shows like Hak5, Ctrl-Alt-Chicken are relevant to the audiences they serve as shown by the thousands of viewers who regularly watch Youtube or download episodes from websites.
In any event shows such as Amateurlogic are of equal if not greater relevance than cable tv and community tv shows which are included in the following wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_community_access_television_programs
Arguably Amateurlogic should have been listed there as well. It also arguably should be listed an an example of Australian (partly) culture.
As stated elsewhere I am not that fussed that the article gets deleted but I feel there should be a consistent application of policy regarding deletions and what constitutes notability. Further the inherent bias against IPTV shows vs community tv and cable tv shows in notability considerations needs to be discussed.
Pberrett 05:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would call this spam. It defines a term to describe an online service, then links to 5 commercial websites offering this service. If it was a more notable type of online service then it might be okay, but this just seems fishy. The websites don't look like they took too much work to create, and seem to list diploma mills, although I didnt look very much through them.
The result was speedy delete. W.marsh 15:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Wikipedia generally considers post offices to be worthy of individual articles, but as I'm not familiar with the postal system of India, I'm bringing this to AFD in case I've missed something. JavaTenor 02:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a term someone made up one day. In August 2007, someone put a speedy delete tag on it, and an admin removed a few hours later with no explanation; perhaps the nomination had not been completed properly. I did a Google and a Google Scholar search on this term and got no meaningful hits. The only hits on google appeared to be mirrors of this site or were mentions of the phrase created after this article was created. Jeff Dahl 01:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost no content, and notability can be disputed. This Google Search turns up only places to buy the album (well, mostly download it), and since the article ANTAGEN is being put up for deletion, this article should probably be too. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if referenced, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Bands that article claims he has connections to make no mention of him in their articles. Brewcrewer 01:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily delete as pure vandalism. Ginkgo100talk 02:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find a reliable source supporting what the article says. It's probably a joke, especially since the sole contributor's user name is identical with the last name of the subject. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and WP:SALT due to several re-creations of this and related articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This band with one self-produced album has only two possible donors of notability; their claim to have been produced by Ryan Greene and their appearance in the Warped Tour 2005. I can't verify either of those through the relevant Wikipedia articles, at Ryan Greene's website here or at the official Warped Tour website here. The claim to have been produced by Ryan Greene is widespread and I actually believe it, just can't prove it -- I can't find anything to substantiate their assertion of having been on the Warped Tour. Accounting4Taste 00:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. The JPStalk to me 16:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it asserts notability, but the website only went online a few days ago. WP:WEB and WP:CRYSTAL. Alksub 00:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 17:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get why having this list is useful. It's an indiscrimate collection of some information arranged in an indiscrimate way. Relevant information should be/is in the respective articles. The JPStalk to me 16:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ARticle was deleted by User:Bearcat--JForget 01:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced but detailed account of a legal dispute by a party to that dispute. Much the same text was added to several other articles by the same author but has been removed. There has been some media coverage of the events. Because it deals with a legal dispute, this article would have to meet a very high standard of referencing before it could be kept. It is also not really a biographical article, so a change of title would also be necessary. gadfium 18:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]