< October 29 | October 31 > |
---|
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A number of objections, culled from the Talk page:
--Waggawag 10:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(
The result was withdraw nomination. Carlosguitar 05:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my AfD proposals in favour of the solution suggested by User:Blathnaid in the discussion below; which is to keep four main P'n'R articles and merge three minor ones, including this one "Ballydung 666" (Sarah777 01:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I am completing an incomplete AFD by Sarah777. There was no reasoning offered, but the article has obvious real world notability issues and probably cannot be cited with reliable secondary sources as required by WP:FICT. I vote Delete. Pilotbob 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Ballydung * Ballydung 666 * Ballydung Manor * Fester and Ailin'
There are also three main articles on the show
* Podge and Rodge * The Podge and Rodge Show * Features of The Podge and Rodge Show
and there are other miscellaneous articles such as
* A Scare at Bedtime which is a combination of a list of dozens of red links embedded in yet another version of the Podge and Rodge article.
There are about five more articles which should either be deleted or merged into a single Podge and Rodge article. (Sarah777 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete, obvious hoax, text copied from Oscar Wilde. Kusma (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. The image is of Leopold Staff. Google search gives nil result here and here. TerriersFan 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 02:14, 11/5/2007
This article is entirely unreferenced, and has a wholly inappropriate tone for a biography. It was written by what appears to be the subject himself (Jimjag (talk · contribs · logs)). The claims to notability in the article are all unreferenced, "A/UX Guru", editorship of the Apache section of slashdot, and his partnership in Apache Software Foundation. Notability is not inherited, and the combination of three weak claims to notability don't rise above the other problems with the article (WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:V, and tone).
The result was speedy deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me (speedy A7). Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of notability, but nothing there which indicates that he's really notable. Corvus cornix 23:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete by WP:SNOW as failing WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, and WP:V, possibly an Urban legend, for a film to be released in 3 years' time. Bearian 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article was "unsourced" and prodded; User: POTAFan added a link to a (in my opinion dubious) weblog and removed "prod". The very model of a minor general 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, unless a reliable (not a blog) reference can be added. --θnce θn this island Speak 23:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, no claim of notability for the site or the software. Corvus cornix 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. east.718 at 15:37, 11/5/2007
No sign of notability. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per consensus. Good improvement, though there're still some self-published sources that need to be replaced.PeaceNT 13:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While many notable people may have recorded at this studio, that doesn't in and of itself make the studio notable. The only reference in the article is the only media reference on the studio's official website. A single media reference isn't enough for WP:CORP. IrishGuy talk 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Subjects are actually too disparate for a useful category to be created out of them - making the list even more redundant. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikpedia is not a directory. Contested PROD. Corvus cornix 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been speedy deleted by User:Newyorkbrad--JForget 00:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MikeVitale 21:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a db-attack tag on this. Corvus cornix 16:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fails the reliable source requirement of WP:FICT and contains original research (one of the sources is Approximate measurements gained from personal research) Pilotbob 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable anti-Semite. Wikipedia is not Klanwatch or similar; while this fellow seems to have a large web presence and have attracted the attention of anti-bigotry watchdog groups, has he done anything noteworthy? EngineerScotty 20:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about a user modification and rules modification to Halo 2; nn, OR, etc.
Carlossuarez46 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability requirements of WP:BIO, lacks reliable sources Pilotbob 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn holiday campsite, only source is from its owner - nothing to show significant coverage in third party reliable sources, fails WP:N Carlossuarez46 20:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carlossuarez46 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 21:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to establish notability for apparently independent film that Yahoo claims grossed over $13,000 at the box office. MikeVitale 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written essay with no sources. Has been tagged for well over a year now. Ridernyc 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 15:39, 11/5/2007
Subject lacks real world notability, does not meet WP:V, WP:N and probably can't be sourced with secondary sources to meet WP:FICT Pilotbob 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I would be happy to userfy this. east.718 at 15:46, 11/5/2007
Subject lacks real world notability, no secondary sources to meet WP:FICT, in universe context only Pilotbob 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect. Carlosguitar 05:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not pass notability guidelines in WP:FICT, no reliable secondary sources, in universe context only, no real world notability, sources are all D&D universe sources Pilotbob 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent vanity bio of former athlete. Career includes a 14th place finish in high jumping at the 64 Olympics and a 4th place finish at the 68 Olympics. Also created at Valery Skvortsov ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Default keep, without prejudice to referring back to AfD at a later point. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable songs from the region of Macedonia. 95% of the article volumes are the lyrics. There have been endless disputes if the songs originate from Bulgaria or the Republic of Macedonia. I am also nominating the following pages:
ForeignerFromTheEast 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Fails WP:N. Move to Macedonian WP. MISSINGNO. was here. 20:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Keep and move I suggest moving to Wikisource. MISSINGNO. was here. 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clearly state what you want. I have fulfilled all of Wikipedia's requirements what more are you looking for? Also please notice how fellow unrelated editors are agreeing that this is not how you portray it. Ireland101 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you did not see what I posted above I will re post it.
What kind of sources are you looking for? It is clear that it was of national significance that it was played and featured on the US government website. The International Soros Foundation has a page dedicated to its cultural significance. The BBC has noted it cultural significance. It is notable enough that sheet music is printed and distributed world wide. And if that was not enough, famous non-Macedonian, non-Balkan musicians have played it and added it to their shows. As it is apparent that all of Wikipedia's requirements are met what more are you looking for? Ireland101 03:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed already, everything is so obvious its shameful. But back to the subject: the song is not a traditional song but it has been composed by the famous Macedonian singer Jonče Hristovski based on the traditional macedonian folk music in 1964. Little by little the song became popular among the commong folks in the Balkans, and thus, its often mistaken for a traditional song. The copyrights for the song have been inherited by Jonče Hristovski's daughters after his death ("Vest" Daily Newspaper Issue: 502 3/11/2002, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia (in Macedonian)). These claims were denied by the Bulgarian editors, however as I already said they just reverted the article to the unsourced Bulgarian POV without providing any counter-argument. Strangely Corvix didnt react back then Dzole 02:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im afraid some of you fail to notice the real problem here. Its obviously not about any sources anymore, its about ForeignerFromTheEast's and Laveol's obvious tendention to push Bulgarian POV specificaly in Macedonian articles. Theres no Macedonian article that is not rewritten by them and this normally includes the Macedonian folk songs too. You have history versions and all to check it out just dont try to convince me that im wrong. Im just stating the obvious facts and I wrote Foreigner himself about his tendentious behaviour, beacause of which, all this started in the first place Dzole 07:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Notability established, some NPOV concerns, though. PeaceNT 12:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting deletion because this is a non-notable location for skateboarding. There are no reliable third party sources about the subject, sources have been requested since September 2007, and all we keep getting is more skatecruft and vandalism, and of course no sources. Burntsauce 19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ρх₥α 17:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion nomination Non-notable restaurant. I have eaten at one of these, but that doesn't make it notable. There are no references nor are there any real assertions of notability here. Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion nomination Article makes no assertion of notability. This is just a list of bit parts the actor has appeared in. Holding a job, even one like "actor", does not make one notable. What does make one notable is extensive coverage in multiple, reliable sources. I see no evidence of that here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect as it duplicates all content in the main series article, and is not a notable fictional character. Bearian 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This character is not sufficiently notable for a separate page. This should either be deleted or merged into the series in another place. Also fails WP:FICT Pilotbob 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 05:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete ; if you want a copy to merge, just ask. --Haemo 01:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character per WP:FICT. Reliable secondary sources do not appear to exist. 350 ghits ("-wikipedia") from mostly random fansites and forums. Doctorfluffy 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Carlosguitar 05:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High school newspaper with no claim of notability in article. Had been redirected to Northside College Preparatory High School, but original editor has restored prior version. Rather than get into an edit war, I think a discussion of keep, merge/redirect, or delete is order. Fabrictramp 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. No assertion of notability in game article; official website is dead. Disputer claims there was substantial coverage, but has provided none. Percy Snoodle 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 01:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion nom possible hoax, google search turns up nada. Also, even if it is a real word, this is merely a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, per WP:DICDEF. Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 05:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion nomination: Possible hoax article. google search turns up squadoosh, unless this concept exists ONLY in print media, this looks like a hoax. Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No real assertion of notability, let alone references to establish such. TexasAndroid 15:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be more specific please, just how "notable" do you want? infestedsmith 17:09, 24 October 2007
Sorry, didn't know KEEP meant it was a vote, I'm new to Wiki. :Pinfestedsmith 22:24, 25 October 2007
TexasAndroid, this is the author again. I'd like to note that nothing on the dim3 wikipedia page is mine; I will likely never edit it as I trust my users to do that (and I want the page to be as non-partisan as possible.) I do not, though, want this page to disappear, and I'm wondering if you and I could talk about it over email so I could get to you whatever you felt you needed to make it "notable." dim3 was a staff pick on Apple's download side, which should make the software notable right there (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/development_tools/dim3.html), and also listed in Apple's game engine site (http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2005/08/gamebuildingtools/), but, again, if that's not enough, please pull my email from this account I just created and let's talk about it (ggadwa). When you called the users asking for it to be kept a "puppet parade" I'm afraid your mind has already been made up, and would like the chance to personally try change it.
I apologize if this might be considered out-of-line or the wrong place for this, but I want to do everything I can to fix whatever problems you feel the entry might have. I must say that it was your prompting that caused the article to get much better from it's original state, so I thank you for putting that fire under the community, and any more steering would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggadwa (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another outside link from a internet games magazine: http://www.insidemacgames.com/features/view.php?ID=312 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggadwa (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, everybody, let's take this one step at a time. TexasAndroid says no notability; now Gaven says no secondary sources to demonstrate reliability. Let's look at Wikipedia's own definition of reliable sources:
A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. Authors may be reliable outside their primary field if recognized as having expertise in a secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
I have two links from Apple; one where dim3 is a staff pick, which means Apple has used the software and finds it something it would recommend to users and one where Apple lists it on it's game creation page. These are, by Wikipedia's definition, a trustworthy or authoritative staff. Who would be more an authoritity on OS X software and who would be more trustworthy then Apple itself? What could be more notable for OS X software then be mentioned as a staff pick by Apple? This is the point of debate; repeating the "not reliable" phrase does not counter this argument. Please explain the continuation of this delete.Ggadwa 14:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)13:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We now have over 5 links to reviews, is that enough or is there something else we should do?Tmsgames 19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)tmsgames[reply]
At this point, I've read the wikipedia rules a number of times and attempting to do everything in my power (aside from editing the article, which is something I won't do as I'm the author.) The hang-up still seems to be 'reliable', 'independent', and 'non-trivial.' As noted, there are a number of links, some are reviews, and the most important ones come from Apple itself. My question is this, and I think it's the crux of this discussion -- which one of the requirements are these breaking? Take the Apple one for instance.
Independent: I have NO relationship with Apple, I'm just a developer. I have no developer license nor have paid Apple (or gotten any money) from Apple. My software works on OS X, and that's the totality of the relationship.
Non-Trivial: Obviously, Apple is non-trivial, it's a large well known company. Is it reliable?
Reliable: That's sort of a value judgment, but I think it would be a good call to say yes.
The others are reviews (from mac oriented magazines or game oriented sites.) None of these were written or lead by myself. Are they independent because of this? Yes. Non-Trivial? Reliable? Those are almost judgment calls.
Again, I didn't actually know about this article until my users (who created it and keep it) noted it on the message board. Have we discussed it on the message board? Yes, we have, but the point is that my users are vocal, this is certainly not a puppet parade. And, as you look, what this has all done is gotten us to discuss what needs to be in the article to make it fit with what the admins would like. This is what every community lead project should be like. Bring in the new people, help prod them along, and grow things in the right way. As Colonel Warden mentioned.
The dim3 article obviously started out as a "newbie" article, full of things that would tag it for instant deletion -- but now has obviously grown way beyond that to a much stronger and better cited article, and we are discussing it and continuing to grow it with these ideas in mind.
As for independent cites (For Jaryon32), I think you need to consider the MacWorld, Inside Mac Games, and Apple's site as 2 non-press release articles and a staff-pick at Apple. Ggadwa 20:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Its worth mentioning that dim3 is used by a number of academic institutions (including Bath Spa University) for coursework projects. Bath, for example, used dim3 as the core for the project to teach students how to set up convincing atmospheric environment contextual soundscapes. Such projects are rarely listed outside of the these institutions. The accessibility of the dim3 engine allows people unfamiliar with coding to radially develop interactive 3d environments. The engine has its pro's and con's and wikipedia is meant to be an unbiased information repository.
The original article was very much a formatted Press Release and left to neglect. Flagging the article for deletion has definitely spurred the "MeatPuppets" to improved the quality of the entry.
It should also be noted that dim3 is one of the few 3d game editing pakages avalible to mac users. The others being unity and torque (and gtkRadient). There is a lack of promotion on the behalf of the engine's developers - and as such there are far fewer users than competing products. I personally came across it from an IGN review. IGN Dim3 Articles
Personally I treat wikipedia as the fount of all knolege, and removing something that is of great interest to Mac users because it was badly written would be a sore shame.
I think it would help the organization if a "Mac Game Engines" category was created or given its own sub-section on [List_of_game_engines]. This would allow a comparison grid of the available products. (I don't think that concatenating the dim3 article into another would be a good idea)
As for a reason why dim3 is notable, It is the only free 3d game engine with editing tools avalibe on the Mac . (Quake 3 + gtkRadient isnt practical for most users)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.96.106 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, i think we need another arbitrary section break—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.236.243 (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it seems that the consensus is at least a default keep, it can't hurt to add more links: http://www.devmaster.net/engines/engine_details.php?id=292 This is basically a clearing house for 3D engines. It has reliability (as there are reviews) but would be a judgment call for notability. Some good places for potential cites.Ggadwa 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was quick and dirty merge. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article for a sub-forum of a sub-community of an online forum. Fails WP:WEB. No independent reliable coverage, no awards that I could find. Otto4711 16:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ☎ 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting deletion because this person is not notable and there are no reliable, non-trivial third party publications about the subject. Weil possibly played a part in founding a company (along with what appears to arguably be 3 other "founders") but there are no reliable third party sources on THAT either, therefore I stand behind the delete point of view. Burntsauce 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, etymologies are the domain of Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Powers T 15:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 05:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. ((prod)) and ((unreferenced)) removed by User:Giftruns without comment, so moving to AfD. Mikeblas 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to Nintendo GameCube Broadband Adapter. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very few items on this list, virtually no possibility of it ever being expanded whatsoever. Just because other video game consoles have such lists does not mean that everyone needs these lists. A Link to the Past (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. -- Longhair\talk 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is some news coverage here, but I'm unsure whether it rises above the level of WP:NOT the NEWS. Given the quality of the coverage, including a quotation from a "friend" that the gentleman might have been a member of the SS, I'm very skeptical. As a recently deceased person, BLP may also need discussing. Delete for these reasons. Xoloz 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 05:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list of fictional spacecraft is mainly plot summary without any primary sources or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of this board game.--Gavin Collins 14:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There are few arguments for outright keeping of the article, and given the suggested merge destination has been deleted (Companions of the Hall), I can only take the arguments to merge as arguments to delete. It should also be noted the article lacks any reliable sources, an argument raised in this discussion which has not been addressed. I am happy to userfy this if requested - as Companions of the Hall was prod-deleted, it can be resurrected fairly easily, and a merge could be done. Neil ☎ 09:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. ((prod)) removed by User:71.108.52.19 without comment, so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 14:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19:50, 5 November 2007 The-G-Unit-Boss (Talk | contribs) deleted "Companions of the Hall" (Expired PROD, concern was: non-notable group of fictional characters.)
The result was delete and then I'll put a redirect up. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. ((unreferenced)) and ((prod)) removed by User:204.208.179.5 without comment, so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 14:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Unsourced material that doesn't merit merging, and proposed destination page has been deleted itself. CitiCat ♫ 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. ((prod)) removed by User:71.108.52.19 without comment, so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 14:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. ((prod)) and ((unreferenced)) removed by User:204.208.179.5 without comment, so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 13:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. henrik•talk 22:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. ((prod)) removed without explanation, so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 13:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
notability concerns. The most notable thing about this person seems to be being 'one of the leagues most productive players to date' in Little League Baseball in the city of Santa Fe Springs, attributed to scouting records of the Texas Rangers. It is clear that this page needs some cleanup and wikifying, but those are seperate issues, not important for this AfD Martijn Hoekstra 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few claims to notability, but all seem pretty minor and even collectively I don't think they add up to passing WP:BIO. ~Matticus TC 08:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect. henrik•talk 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little content outside of definition, subject to abuse under WP:ADVERT Michaelbusch 05:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain this article since it refers to an important evolution in journalism, not simply technology. Add: Convergence creates new opportunities for journalists to gather and disseminate information beyond the traditional media-specific methods used by print-radio-television; media convergence also creates new opportunities for citizen journalists and citizens to disseminate information through credible media channels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediajohnw (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above, I've redirected the page to Technological convergence and am declaring this AfD closed. Michaelbusch 19:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge with Video 125. I'll do the initial merge, but any editor is free (even encouraged) to help out.--Kubigula (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be notable, not sure if it fails any particular criteria. Previously proposed for deletion as unencyclopedic, but tag was removed. Snigbrook 02:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. ((prod)) (and ((unreferenced))) tags removed by User:71.108.52.19 without comment, so moving to AfD. Mikeblas 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - No sources provided to indicate real-world notability. Mr.Z-man 04:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. Prod removed by User:204.208.179.5 without comment, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas 13:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. Prod was removed by User:Shorturban without comment, so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 13:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DeleteJForget 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb on a WWE Diva Search contestant that came second. Has some WP:BLP issues and notability is not clear. PROD was removed, so here we are. I think it should be deleted instead of merged because of the unsourced privacy invading details. GRBerry 13:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Several commentators have opined that this article is now a mess but has potential to be encyclopedic, but significantly, there was only one support for "keep". Even taking into account the two neutrals, there seems to be consensus to delete. One commentator suggested that the songs could be integrated into the articles about the politicians. So they could, subject to due weight. But as we're talking only about names of songs, and not any material that would come under the GFDL, this doesn't require that the article be kept. Anyone who wants a copy of this list can ask for David Gerard or some other admin to send a copy in email. --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List is pure orignal research. On quick look almost every song I know is no about any president at all let alone the one its listed under. For example read the lyrics to the song "It's A Hit" [1]. Yes it mentions someone running for office and deploying troops. But it really makes no mention of anyone in office or any office in particular. Another example Yes the song "Ohio" mentions Nixon, but it's about the Kent State shootings not Nixon. List seems doomed to unsourced orignal research. Seems like any song written on a political topic will automatically be about the person in office at the time. Ridernyc 12:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be about a guys boat. It has no real importance and does not contain any useful information. I think it unlikly it will be of use to anyone.
I nominate this for deletion
CaptinJohn 11:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No! This is the Craig J Venter Yacht used for Global Ocean Sampling Expedition to sample and sequence the DNA genomes/proteomes of the World's Oceans and has managed to increase the genetic stock available to scientists by over an order of magnitude. Non-notable my ass! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.165.65 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable; see Talk:BixData for details. If this article is deleted, please also delete the Bixdata redirect. A. B. (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--JForget 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. Marlith T/C 22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect, as redirects are cheap. east.718 at 15:53, 11/5/2007
This person has no notability outside of a famous father. Furthermore, his article has existed in an incoherent stub status for several years and a Google search yields no reference outside of his own Wikipedia article Lordjeff06 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor, recurring character. Kogsquinge 02:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. We can certainly discuss whether being part of a (now) purely theoretical royal family should be notable, but merely asserting so without referring to applicable guidelines is a very weak argument. The notability guideline requires substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, which is not in evidence for these people. Sandstein 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable four year old here, should be deleted or merged as with many minor royals. See also recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Tatiana of Leiningen for an example of someone over a decade older, who has arguably done more, but is not notable just because she is a princess. Charles 16:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not notable. I concur with the delete arguments expressed above, I afraid. --Malcolmxl5 22:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to Seven Sisters (Forgotten Realms). Fang Aili talk 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. Prod was deleted by 204.208.179.5 without comment (along with the ((unreferenced)) tag), so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 23:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Game doesnt seem to exist, only edits by User:Smirnoffka have been related to this article, the article does not cite any references or sources. Salavat 09:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Not really much more than a resume. Prod declined in August with advice to try AfD. Malcolmxl5 09:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 02:25, 11/5/2007
These are all demo tapes of a Japanese band which existed for four years and released two albums. These demo tapes have no claims to notability and fail WP:MUSIC. (when Googling for "Street of Alice" "Velvet Eden", please note that the first album of the band has the same title, so most hits are about the album, not the demo tape)
Also nominated:
Fram 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be WP:MADEUP. Neither google nor yahoo return any matches to this sport. ARendedWinter 09:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a recreational game that is growing legs... What started as a game made up with 2 people is now played by a number of people. The reason for creating this wiki is so that it provides a quick and simple explanation for newcomers to the game. Please do not delete this. Piequat 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 05:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anime fancruft at its worst. This article does not cite primary sources, reliable secondary sources or provide any evidence of notability, but worst of all, is comprised of vapid character summary. Gavin Collins 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah go ahead and delete it, it was starting to annoy me anyway. Just add the Deva's info in the Ultimate Digimon section, that will work. Johnny542 15:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable elementary school Chris 07:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a "G-Unit movement". There's the G-Unit group and record label but nothing to suggest a movement. The author uses G-Unit artists MySpaces as references and calls it a "movement", which is original research. Spellcast 07:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spellcast 15:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 02:24, 11/5/2007
Contested speedy. One murder out of many. There's nothing special about it, yes there are six articles listed but none of them say anything more important than what is written in the English one (which is a Swedish newspaper too, just in English). You don't achieve encyclopedic relevance by getting murdered. Deleted on the Swedish Wikipedia. SaberExcalibur! 07:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted (twice, by SQL and Sandahl). Non-admin closure. Deor 12:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is vandalism and possibly libellous. Mastercampbell 06:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There does not seem to be substantial support for deletion of this article, despite some feelings that it would be more appropriate to Commons. Thanks to Amandajm for the offer to improve the article. --Tony Sidaway 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a collection of images, photographs, or media files. I recommend that this be transwikied to an image gallery page on Commons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the issues brough up in the first AFD, over a year ago, have been corrected. This is still an unreferenced proposal with no serious consideration. Don't let the references fool you; almost all of them are either proposals by other "non-notable" people, references about the Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel, or references to other projects for the author's cost analysis. Basically, the only thing that is not original research is that a truck tunnel was briefly studied during planning for the rail tunnel, but was determined to be infeasible. --NE2 06:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article asserts no notability. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Twenty Years 05:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Connells Point, New South Wales#Schools. This doesn't prejudice the possibility of splitting it into a full article again should more verifiable information become available in the future. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:N and WP:ORG. It asserts no notability. The only thing i found on the school was an article by the Herald 1, which only give the school a passing mention. Twenty Years 05:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character. Cited sources only offer up plot summary/background; no real-world notability or sources to pass WP:WAF. EEMeltonIV 05:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article, which is unreferenced and has very little context, is a complete put-on. If there is an actress named Kelly Bailey, she's not notable. And as far as I can determine there is no current "hit show" (TV? Radio? Internet?) titled My Life. ShelfSkewed Talk 05:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional street is not notable outside of GTA. Pilotbob 04:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 15:50, 11/5/2007
The subject lacks real world notability. Pilotbob 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Non admin closure. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 19:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional concept lacks reliable sources and has no real world notability Pilotbob 03:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The keep arguments have little merit. east.718 at 02:23, 11/5/2007
WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated people. Are Yoko Ono and Muhammad Ali closely associated just because they have both been married four times? No. The intro states that these people are "notable for four or more marriages", but most of these people aren't notable for their multiple marriages (and the "notability" of their marriages can't be measured in an encyclopedic way). Arbritrary cut-off point as well. Create a Category:Multiple marriages or something, for the few genuinely notable ones, but this list is just celebrity trivia. Masaruemoto 03:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with WP:NOT#OR. This article is in debate/discussion format, with the research declared as being original in the article lead. SesameballTalk 03:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Sandstein 20:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly non-notable in his own right and any notability is directly derived from his father, etc. Merge to his father's article, where the entire content of the article is located already. This is not a case of notability like Prince Henry of Wales, where he is wholly notable in his own right. Charles 03:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages, all siblings, for the exact same reasons:
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Victoria Marina Cecilie of Prussia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles (talk • contribs) 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and re-direct to The Ensworth School. Non-admin closure. Camaron1 | Chris 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD (said that high schools are "notable by default"), which is terribly inaccurate. Even schools (whether they be high, middle, elementary) need to assert some notability, which this one clearly does not in its current revision. Rjd0060 03:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article pending deletion, while 3 other schools in the same area are not? halofandelta010
This is the matter of concern here, double standards.--victor falk 11:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]"Spam & Co Inc manufacture spam.
Reference:
Newsflash: No Way To Earn Bacon After Spam & Co Layoff".
Speedy close this debate; all problems have been taken care of Rjd0060 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was felt that my prod was premature. Nothing has happened to the article in ten days so I say "non-notable". -- RHaworth 03:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. If these people have received coverage in sufficient quantity and quality for WP:N purposes, this is not in evidence in their articles or in this discussion. No other arguments to keep that are based on pertinent policies or guidelines have been made. See also the rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Pierre of Orléans, which mostly applies here as well. Sandstein 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These such articles are at best genealogical entries (link to an official policy) which do not make their subjects notable. All such articles should be deleted or merged to their relevant ancestors articles, if at all, rather than retaining stubs which present their birth dates and their non-notable issue. Princes and princesses may be notable but only if they are not obscure or have done notable things. Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Tatiana of Leiningen for a similar situation where an article was composed only of biographical information for an otherwise non-notable individual. Charles 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was delete without prejudice. east.718 at 02:21, 11/5/2007
Article on an average church with nothing to distinguish it from any other PCUSA congregation. Nyttend 03:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your battlefield is not my battlefield, nor your values mine. We are mutually irrelevant. PastorMatt 05:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, I can only write of the things I know. I have done so, and spread it out before you. If left online, I will likely expand on it as some of you have suggested, but time and life does not allow me to do so right now. Then again, someone else with more perfect knowledge and love of the subject might see my work, and take up the mantle of improvement.
I have put my knowledge out in front of you. If you choose to eliminate it from your sight, so be it. If not, it might turn out to be an interesting, and useful article.
Another thing, please don't say delete if your intention is to salvage, improve or save an article. That is really unfriendly. PastorMatt 01:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on an average church with nothing to distinguish it from any other independent church Nyttend 03:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Average-looking street; the only possible claim of notability is its unsourced and dubious claim of a unique name. Nyttend 03:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no controversy behind this. There is only a cooling trend in some parts of the cold continent, which everyone agrees about. So, the article is really a WP:SYN. It is also worth mentioning that Doran, the scientist referenced, complained about his work being misused by the author mentioned in the article. Finally, renaming is not good since without the controversy hype in the title the material really does not deserve its own page (it would be a gross violation of weight.) Brusegadi 02:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. east.718 at 02:19, 11/5/2007
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The rationale for deletion is that the content on this page is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The reason that the content is not suitable is that it is a soapbox of political opinions about current affairs, propaganda and recruitment [36] hung on the hook of a notable topic, a topic which this article fails to discuss in any great depth. For example, the Nazis showed the most extreme form of anti-Russian sentiment, but it is only given one single sentence and a quote in the whole article, while we have sections upon sections of accusations by Russian authorities leveled at other countries that they currently have poor relations with.
It is a classic coatrack of unfounded accusations of anti-Russian sentiment leveled at particular countries. For example we have Britain listed as a country holding anti-Russian sentiment, yet the only evidence is some unfounded accusations by the Russian ambassador in the wake of the Litvinenko assasination. The article cites some survey regarding negative perceptions of Russia: 62% in Finland, 42% in the Czech Republic and Switzerland, 37% in Germany, 32% in Denmark and Poland, 23% in Estonia. Yet we don't see sections on Finland, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Germany or Denmark in this article, but the Baltic states is listed, even though their level of negative perception is significantly lower than those other countries. The Baltic States section contains only more unfounded accusations from Russian authorities, but no real evidence of actual anti-Russian sentiment. Poland too is listed as is the USA. This article seems to only list those countries that the Russian Federation currently has difficult relations with. The page has become an inflammatory attack page directed at those particular countries, particularly with the juxtapostion of an image of a Nazi inscription "The Russian must die so that we may live" at the top of the article. This kind of thing has no place in Wikipedia.
As it stands, this article does not reflect "anti-Russian sentiment" as defined in the scholarly sources, but had become a sort of rolling "complaints board" where the latest accusation or innuendo published in the Russian press is posted. For example, at the height of the difficulties with Georgia there was a section on Georgia, and a section on Austria after some hotel had an issue with drunk Russian tourists [37], but no mention of the UK or the USA, since Litvinenko or the missile shield issues hadn't happened yet. Unfortunately it is impossible to improve the article to something reasonable like anti-Polish sentiment since it is defended by a handful of editors who want to maintain it as a soapbox. The article is substantially the same and has not improved since the previous deletion debate was closed on July 19 [38], despite all the promises to rewrite and improve the article by those who voted to keep. Therefore deletion is warranted. Martintg 02:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no source - possible OR Chris! ct 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN, single move actor, lots of OR Toddst1 02:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--JForget 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COATRACK and NN ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Can't get past original research and what wikipedia is not. I'll delete this. . Mercury 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed for deletion as: list is entirely unsourced, largely unsourceable, and as such unreliable. that makes its already doubtful encyclopedic value even more doubtful. Was deleted but contested with rationale: "Scott Boras is an influential and controversial baseball agent, and it's reasonable to want a compiled list of the players he represents, especially since his company does not release this information."
IMO, if "his company does not release this information", this article is a complete load of original research and should stay deleted, so here we are. Resurgent insurgent 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, no assertion of notability, advertising, and lastly copyright violation of their only press release announcing the starting of the site - which happens to be dated three days ago. Resurgent insurgent 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article promotes a website whose notability is not asserted. No Google hits at all, not even for the site itself. Reads like a news release. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN, self-published author, host of local, self-produced CATV show Toddst1 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no reliable sources - possible OR - could be a hoax - google returns 6000 hits, but none of them indicate its existence Chris! ct 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 01:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable only recently established student society, with no independent sources and page content mirroring its own website. Rlfb 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Merging can be done at editors' discretion. Sandstein 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already transwikied as wikibooks:American Sign Language/Grammar 1. – Þ 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a utterly non-notable Canberra suburban street Grahamec 02:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 35°21′25″S 149°02′24″E / 35.357°S 149.040°E / -35.357; 149.040[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough sources, for the only source available is a MySpace link Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be about a currently non-existent technology; the article has no significant Google hits and is poorly cited as well. Bumm13 10:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 02:15, 11/5/2007
non-notable bio Ex65 22:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]