< November 7 | November 9 > |
---|
The result was Speedy Close, non-existent article. (Non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably meets G3 or G1 :/ Imperat§ r(Talk) 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonstopdrivel has nominated this article for deletion but does appear to have said why.
I cannot see any reason for doing so. It seems to be an extensive and informative article about a number of commonly used terms. Possibly the article on ganister may be merged providing it remains clear to readers of Totley Tunnel. It should perhaps also make clear that it is the loss of certain salts due to prehistoric plant growth that gives it its specific properties for use as fireclay (as opposed to ordinary brick clay) Chevin (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-advertisement by a non-notable artist. Written in very poor English, plus very poor knowledge of wiki-markup (resulting lots of dead links). The original Russian version of the article is nominated for deletion in Russian WP. By the way, why is this article semi-protected?. Netrat (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. while it may be useful, consensus is that it's not notable. StarM 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is merely a sales catalog style definition of a product, fails WP:CATALOG Oscarthecat (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no reliable secondary sources Bali ultimate (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Saiyan. MBisanz talk 18:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply and in-universe repetition of the plot sections of various Dragon Ball articles. As such, it is duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of Dragon Ball Z articles. As such, it is duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An outdated rumor for a team that has shown no signs of ever existing. There would be almost nothing factual that could be added to this stub of an article. The359 (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Copyvio. Sandstein 23:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a good article on Knowledge management, to which this adds nothing. This is the author Kazanovac (talk · contribs)'s second attempt at a fork - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What is Knowledge Management earlier today. A PROD would probably be removed, so I bring it straight here. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to House of Mihran. WP:V is not negotionable. But this redirect should allow editors to add any material that they are able to source to the target article and continue working from there. Sandstein 19:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references offered for this don't cut the mustard. The first one is very vague without enough information to know where to look for it. The other two are both searchable with Google Books, the Wilcox book not getting any hits when I search for "Mihran" within it, and the only possibly relevant information from the Farrokh book is that "the post of Savaran Sardar was held by a member of the Mihran-Pahlav family during Julian's invaasion in 362". That's not enough to support the existence of this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close as keep. No valid reason for deletion has been given (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I attend this school and almost everything on it isn't true. And it is giving our school a bad name. So please delete this because nothing is true and yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlhensley32 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. It's still unclear to me why a redirect to Lulu (company), a book-on-demand company whose article does not mention Sutton, would make any sense as a redirect, but feel free to create one. Sandstein 19:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dom web-site operator. Claims to have published two books, but they're both from a vanity press. Much promotional detail, no reliable sources, and a quick spin through Google only pulls in a large number of very low-quality hits. CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irish local council candidate for future election. No other notability claimed, no sources. CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Source here : James Lawless blog[reply]
James Lawless is notable in Co. Kildare, Leinster, Fianna Fáil and Irish politics. A source has been provided for the claim of candidate for upcoming elections. Further information will be added to the article and sources will be provided in due course. User:Nickleeson FF —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Being a candidate for the Kildare County Council is notable within Irish politics. Kildare County Council is responsible for approx. 180,000 citizens and is the 5th largest local authority in Ireland. See Kildare CoCo website User:Nickleeson FF —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This was at least the third time this article was up for deletion--and it was deleted at one point in the spring of 2008.--Canada1776 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See immediately below Justmeherenow ( ) 20:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A merge was previously discussed at Talk:Lolo Soetoro#merge redirect recommendation. Voters in this AfD may wish to read the comments made earlier in relation to that merge proposal.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough claims of notability here to avoid an A7 speedy, but a gsearch isn't coming up with hits to verify any of them. Prod contested without comment. Given the talk page and post-prod edits to the article, a G3 speedy wouldn't be out of the question. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awk no, don't be going and deleting the Turncake Project's page! It's good clean fun and is spreading an image of hope and love that, I think, is more appropriate now than ever before. So I say keep the Turncake Project on Wikipedia, to stand as a constant reminder as to what we can achieve when we just believe in ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.253.45 (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI article with no claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. Had been nominated for speedy deletion as an advert, but original editor removed the tag multiple times -- last removal by IP editor. Gsearch comes up with just 7 non-wiki ghits, none of which shows a whiff of notability. Gnews search comes up with 0 hits. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Copyvio. Sandstein 23:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main article of Knowledge Management is fine. The creator of this article has repeatedly removed redirects to Knowledge Management. There are no sources or unique content to warrant a separate article. Also, the "what is" title is not an appropriate article title. Clubmarx (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No sources = no article. Sandstein 17:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was article G12d, rightly so, before this discussion was over. Non-admin closure. Ouro (blah blah) 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really a topic for an article. No sources or references. I would have done a speedy, but it isn't clear what speedy reason applies. Clubmarx (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Although I gave less weight to the SPAs, a rough consensus developed to keep the article, albeit in a drastically rewritten form. I will add a NPOV disputed tag to the bevy of others on the article, and add it to my watchlist. I suggest others might want to do the same. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fringe theory of dubious notability. Almost all of the references are preprints or papers from the theory's four proponents (Mitra, Leiter, Robertson, Schild), as are most of the papers citing those works. I strongly suspect that most of the article was written by one or more of those proponents (most likely Mitra, whose name appears in the edit history) as a means to gain publicity for the theory.
Mitra's preprints attempt to disprove the well-established result that black holes are predicted by general relativity, but his "proofs" are rooted in a misunderstanding of basic calculus (for example, see Eq. 4.1 in arXiv:astro-ph/9910408 and the sentence following it) which has led him to confuse the superluminal motion of an abstract surface with superluminal motion of actual matter. For this reason his views are unlikely to gain a significant following in the wider physics community.
I realize that just because the idea is wrong doesn't mean it can't have an article in Wikipedia. But the article as it stands puts far too much emphasis on Mitra et al's viewpoint, misleading lay readers into overestimating its merit. (It was from a discussion with one such reader that I came across this article.) At the very least, the article needs a complete rewrite, something that is unlikely to happen due to the obscurity of the idea and the lack of good secondary sources. Jim E. Black (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
article. In particular, if there is anything like ``personal reflection in a scientific article, the same may be removed. May be I will look into such angles. Otherwise, it looks to be balanced scientific article well supported by many published papers in standard peer reviewed journals. However, it is true that in this new concept may take its due time to become well trenched. But this happens with many new concepts. The present plea for deletion seems more to have do with intolerance with new ideas rather than genuine scientific reasons. As far aware, as far as published scientific literature is concerned, there is no critique of the MECO idea. Even if there would be critique of a certain idea or a paradigm, there is no reason that, wiki articles on that idea/paradigm should be deleted. For example, many particle physicists thing that String Theory is a complete failure which is ``Not even Wrong. But such disagreements would not justify deletion of any article on String Theory. -Dingle2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingle2008 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in strong gravitational field, (ii) The existence of a critical luminosity called Eddington Luminosity, and (iii) attainment of strong magnetic fields due to magnetic flux freezing. I do not see how these aspects could be ``crackpot and cranky. Far from it such adjectives seem to be in a bad taste and emanating from intolerance. Neither do I see where is 2+2=5? And if it were so, how so many related papers got published in standard peer reviewed journals. I hope the original authors would improve the article, if need be. Overall, the comments smacks of personal attack and intolerance. This cannot be justified. (Dingle2008 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This new one-hour-a-week show on a student-run university online radio station is not notable. No references from independent reliable sources, and I don't find any (except this article) in Google. Contested PROD - author's reasons given on the talk page. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as hoax. ... discospinster talk 20:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax, no specific source to show verifiability/ RJaguar3 | u | t 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 18:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Company only notable for association with hijacked ship MV Faina, appeared in initial press reports though further reports are showing Tomex Team, not Kaalbye, as owner Switzpaw (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. GbT/c 18:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only source that I could find is the official site. Schuym1 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Team only exists through a press release. Google search reveals nothing besides this article. D-Day (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Aerolínea Principal. Sandstein 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not pass WP:ORG and I could not find evidence of its existance on either GNews or regular Google. A speedy was declined on this, so I didn't want to send it to prod. DARTH PANDAduel 12:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as clearly nonsense. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, unverified. Looks like youthful mischief. Previously speedy deleted as nonsense, most recent speedy delete for same rationale was refused. Author's edit [25] history suggests vandalism as primary motive. JNW (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Kept. No strong editorial consensus about how to present this information, but "keep" and "merge" both argue keeping content. One might argue this should be closed "no consensus", but the outcome is unaffected either way. WilyD 16:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for notability, third-party sources, in-universe and context for a year. Really doesn't seem to be a notable character. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this article speedied several times, and the author seems intent on re-introducing without much improvement. Though I haven't been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources online, previous versions of the article asserted references in photography magazines (if an admin could retrieve these from the falling kingdom, it could help us here). I think we need to either conclusively establish notability, or salt all permutations of the title to prevent this unconstructive cycle from continuing. the skomorokh 17:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sven NordgrenDon’t really see the issue here. The Civil war in Nepal has hardly been on the papers front row. There is hardly any text and very little Photographs made to document this time of history. The Book “ The falling Kingdom” is all that. Why I belief it’s more then notable for Wikipedia. The book is just out in the stores. Since I am been working about 40 years as doctor 10 years as a volunteer in Nepal. I belief I would be able to point out the need for this kind of book and it’s important. Since this my first article in Wikipedia I understand that I did some mistakes in the article. But would appreciate every comment and help to make this page better, which are my only concern. Sincerely Sven Nordgren
The result was speedy delete. GbT/c 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the three seaches that I did, this seems like it's non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person JakeZ (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been tagged since Aug 08 as not having established notability. Article has been tagged since Aug 08 as not having citations or reliable sources. Neither of these have been fixed, nor the work improved. This is a biography regarding a supposed but mostly unknown writer. I have been unable to find additional material to support inclusion. -t BMW c- 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. GbT/c 18:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax. References to films, books etc do not exist. Fails WP:V at the least Tassedethe (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newporte ACF is not only unencyclpedic, its also not notable for an article on WP Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 16:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Newport AFC is a youth organization and is directly involved with the town, this group has been around for over 60 years and has been in the press numerous times. (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2008 (GMT)
The result was delete. Sandstein 19:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shropshire ACF is not only unencyclpedic, its also not notable for an article on WP Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 15:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Battle Royale (film). Spartaz Humbug! 20:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor character that appears for a few seconds in each film. Has not been the subject of significant coverage. Little out-of-universe context. No third-party references. Propose deletion on the grounds of WP:N, WP:WAF and WP:V Marasmusine (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per G3 by Zedla. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find nothing to verify this-- possible hoax. Dlohcierekim 15:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete under criteria WP:SPEEDY#G12; all text within the article's history was copied from the subpages of http://www.soshiantgame.com/en/ , which displays "© 2008 :: Fanafzar Co"
Fails Notability. I have checked on search engine for this information. There is no press release or anything regarding the game. SkyWalker (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear SkyWalker, As I mention in the article the game will be ready for release in the third quarter of 2009. So how would you expect to find any information about its release on press?! By the way, here some pages for the Soshiant game’s activities: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=soshiant+game . Babakarj (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created 26 October 2008 and tagged for speedy deletion as advertising or promotional material. Tag removed by creator with no comment. Google search toady for "Iranian Librarians Association of America" returns 3 hits, all wiki, and a search for "Iranian Librarians Association" produces 4, again all wiki. Now, it may be that this is a new organisation that has yet to build up a Google score, but that in itself suggests this organisation is non-notable and should be deleted rather than using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. Emeraude (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy because I think some assertion of notability is made. However there are no reliable sources to verify the material. A Google search finds numerous hits but none are from what I consider to be non-trivial sites. Additional of solid sourcing would save the article but I found none. JodyB talk 14:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted at author request, and glad he thought better of it. FWIW, another user with Huggle restored his blanking as vandalism, but I assumed that was a mistake, not a statement it should be kept.. DGG (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax or at least made up at school one day. Only 5 Ghits, none reliable. McWomble (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:[reply]
McWomble (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus is clear, although I suspect that this ultimately may prove to be notable. I am happy to userfy a copy of the article if desired. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a fledgling wiki that violates the website notability requirements, as there aren't any reliable sources about the wiki. the article's creator was the founder of LegalWikiPro and added external links to his wiki from many articles, thus violating the conflict of interest guideline. If LegalWikiPro becomes notable, it could have an article here, but Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Graham87 13:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. I agree the article in its final form was not a speedy candidate, but the lack of independent sources is fatal. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged, correctly, as a G11 candidate by Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) but has since been cleaned up and reworded so it's vaguely encyclopedically phrased and just about claims notability. Nevertheless, I still have severe doubts about this product's actual notability - I cannot find any reliable-source coverage, so it would appear to fail WP:V and WP:N. It was also created by a user that shares a name with the product, suggesting a WP:COI. ~ mazca t|c 13:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn, based on significant improvements to the original article. I would like to extend my thanks to those who took the time to bring the article up to a higher level. Be well! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article enhanced by one of the now-defunct band's founders, who also created an article about himself (that was subsequently redirected - the original text is here [28]. Fails WP:RS and WP:V -- the links are all MySpace and YouTube related. I have found no independent verification of the discography in any reliable source. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withrawn by nominator - suggest an editor attempts to expand/improve the article (non-admin closure) Flewis(talk) 22:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Former chairman of the New Delhi Municipal Committee - a non-notable organization and chief secretary of Goa - a non-notable position (incidentally with no article or significance). Context is vague:
The sole reference states that he lodged a semi-notable complaint to the Indian government - a WP:BLP1E violation, if the all his other accomplishments are found to be un-notable. -Flewis(talk) 12:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted via WP:PROD but immediately recreated. New version did not address any of the concerns. Band does not demonstrate notability; no independent sources are provided. The band also has yet to release an album, so the article gazes a bit into the crystal ball. —C.Fred (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Withrawn by me (nominator) per subsequent improvements to the article. Request that the author take heed to the advice on his talk-page and rehash his knowledge of WP:V and WP:RS (non-admin closure) Flewis(talk) 14:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grave verifiability and original research concerns. This article also shows the subject in a negative light, which potentially violates WP:BLP - if that is the case, then the article may be placed for speedy deletion as a BLP violation. Notability here is also a big issue, with a Google search yielding no results whatsoever. I added 2 sources (in Chinese) to the article, however the article still fails WP:BLP1E. On a side note, editors may wish to review this discussion as well. Flewis(talk) 11:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Edmund F. Robertson and Redirect John J. O'Connor. I ended up disregarding the !votes of article creator as the account was a sock evading an indefinite block. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable personality who owns a semi-notable website. No references, external sources or inline citations for WP:V. Otherwise fails WP:ONEVENT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (Please note, article creator has subsequently been indef-blocked by Rlevse) Flewis(talk) 11:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hoax. A speedy has been declined - that was for A1, and while this might qualify for G3, per WP:HOAX maybe better bring it here. The names are not 12th-century names, and there was no such "empire." Metz to Antwerp is 150 miles, and to set up one that size would have taken more than 350 "English soldiers" from Caen (250 miles off and part of the Duchy of Normandy). I have spent more time than it deserves confirming (in COPAC, Google books and Amazon) that none of the books cited as sources exist. The best thing that can be said for the author Connorcraig1 (talk · contribs) is that this shows some imagination and is a step forward from his previous editing history, which consists of vandalising Paisley Grammar School where he is presumably a pupil. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as notability is confirmed via the consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not indicate notability, has 3 ELS but no reliable, published, third party sources. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-08t10:46z
The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to locate any third-party published reviews of the subject book, or indeed even any material references to it in news articles or even blog entries. Neither link provided establishes third-party coverage. Bongomatic 10:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly an attempt to coin a Neologism, the article lacks sources to establish WP:V. No incoming links from other wikipedia articles only further the possibility of WP:NFT Flewis(talk) 10:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the veracity of this article. There is no district in Chicago referred to in Cyrillic characters, and the lack of sources/references only further leads to the prospect of WP:NFT Flewis(talk) 09:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published book through Lulu.com which meets none of the notability criteria in WP:BK dougweller (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements. His name does get a mention in the BBC news article that is linked on the page: [53], but I don't think it's enough. Akamad (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ignoring all the personal attacks, accusations of COI (which isn't even a content guideline; it's a conduct one), and incivility, and giving the arguments of SPAs and IPs their due weight, there is only one conclusion I can reach, and it is this one. kurykh 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Delete Non-notable company. Article deleted before (April 2007), and nothing new has occurred to change the company's status. References are very weak. ShockerHelp (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I encourage everyone to consider the proposed guidelines under WP:TOYS. "A toy or game is not notable simply on the basis of being produced, sold, or marketed." The cited references are all trivial and do not provide significant coverage. A proper reference should exclude "mere mention of the game, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Trivial references include "personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable." I've posted online links to two of the cited print sources in the article's talk page under History and References, the article from the Record and the 2007 Playthings article. Please take the time to look at them. They do not include significant coverage, nor does the Washington Times article. ShockerHelp (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Non-Notable Company. All text presented by obvious company employee, for advertisement purposes. Unable to provide suitable primary sources. Company does not seem to have released any product advertised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.234.62 (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-Notable Company. After reading the entry it talks mostly about products they either canceled, or have yet to produce. I think that fails WP:CYRSTAL? If only product information remained about what was actually produced, a substantial portion of the article should be deleted to satisfy Crystal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbedit (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 November 2008
Sock puppet? Huh? I've since received messages from this JMST person demanding my personal information. Is that considered normal? I have no affiliation with any toy company, or anybody on this site, so I really don't know what this JMST person is on about? I looked up more info on Shocker Toys, their CEO Geoff Beckett makes the same typing/syntax mistakes as JMST. Isn't that a direct Conflict Of Interest, and attempt to use Wikipedia as advertising? I am happy to prove my identity to any ACTUAL Wikipedia staff, but I do not appreciate being spammed by this JMST person in such a hostile manner, just for giving my opinion on something that I thought was open for discussion, in as neutral a manner as possible. Obviously their CEO, JMST, feels otherwise. I'm not happy with this treatment at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.234.62 (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong vote to DELETE. Clear case of COI on this article and all arguments against deletion. JMST is obviously the same poster as Smeagol from the 1st Shocker page. He is also Geoff Beckett who is the CEO of Sucker Toys. No one else in the world uses the word 'bias' like he does. The speech patterns are the same. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is, most likely, a duck. Sucker Toys is non-notable because they have only produced 1 product - the Suckini - in a failed attempt to capitalize on the minifigure craze. They couldn't compete with better products, such as the Stikfa or Minimate, so Sucker Toys tried to bring Indie Spotlight to market. Marvel Toys had the same idea, brought their product out, produced 2 lines and quit in the span of time Beckett is still trying to produce anything from the Indie Spotlight line. One failed toy line produced in 8 years does not make a notable company - unless it is an article about how to fail in every aspect of running a successful toy company.Sybilmpd ( —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC). [reply]
Comment I won't vote because I came here because of a post at RTM by JMST and I respect the message on the top of the page. Don't need to because when Indie Spotlight comes out everyone will know how great Shocker Toys is! People supporting Shocker here need to go tell those fools that Shocker is here to stay! ( http://www.toymania.com/toybuzz/messages/73151.shtml ) Worldwarhulk (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shocker Toys is a non-notable company. As seen in all of the references shown, the coverage the company gets is only obtained by press releases or stories created by the company themselves. In 8 years of existence, they've managed to get only a handful of articles covering them, which should indicate how insignificant they are. Few of the articles are specifically about Shocker Toys, just brief mentions amongst other things, of those focusing on the company, it is clear they're only based upon press releases and attempts by the company to gain attention, rather than the fact that they achieved anything noteworthy.
The company is known amongst the online toy collecting community more for the fact that they're habitual spammers of message boards (often as seen here, posting as an anonymous fan) and they try to gain attention by sending press releases to gain coverage to try to appear legitimate. As also shown in the articles, this toy line has been "coming soon" for close to three years. The company tries to entice people to give them money for "pre-orders" for items they haven't made.
I understand that more weight is going to be given to the judgement call of experience Wiki editors, as well it should. But I feel it is worth informing those of you who will make the decision of the kind of company being dealt with here. As others have pointed out, JMST is in fact Geoff Beckett from ShockerToys. A quick look at the language used on the ShockerToys forum where he posts as ShockerToys will satisfy anyone of the fact based on his distinctive language skills. Also, as posted by WorldWarHulk the discussion started on RTM (http://www.toymania.com/toybuzz/messages/73151.shtml) by JMST urging people to come here to help vote to keep the page is further proof. The user JMST on that forum has registered the email address admin@shockertoys.com. Clearly a COI exists.
Including Shocker Toys on Wikipedia will be lending credibility and notability to a company which otherwise has none. It would not be in the spirit or best interests of Wikipedia to keep this article.SWH (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article went up for deletion on October 12th. It was speedied before a full deletion discussion occurred. The original creator recreated the article on the 16th. I tried to give the user a chance to make the person notable but he really didn't. The show he appeared on doesn't even have it's own article. And it appears as though he hasn't really done much since 2004 anyway. Fails notability. And it could possibly be a hoax as I've found no evidence that this show existed. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you may delete it but please don't put it under rewrite protection because i insure you that this person is notable,i mean almost everyone in that country that is not older than 50 knows about him so i assume if a person in any country has status like this then it is notable.Besides his show is not popular as he is,and yes he is not active in past 4 years but he left a huge mark behind him,there is not much information about him because during the late 90s in serbia internet and computers ware used only in business purposes,most common connections ware 56k modem or 64/128k ISDN.Nole is not just some TV person,hes popularity is equal to Milka Canic's and i see that you have her on en wikipedia.
And why are some parts of the article missing?
Regards and respect,
Gulsrb (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided source: http://www.b92.net/info/emisije/ovo_vas_jos_nisam_pitala.php?yyyy=2005&mm=03&nav_id=164516 This is a interview with Nole on TV B92 from 11th march 2005,you can translate it with google. I think that this proves the existence of him and his show. Gulsrb (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator because of notability shown by Icewedge [ roux ] [x] 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability; the first three pages of Google results show no news, only various listings of the course. [ roux ] [x] 07:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability; appears to be copyvio. [ roux ] [x] 07:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable EP by non-notable band. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was genuine at first, but subsequent edits by the author suggest this is a hoax (see talk). Googling "john molesky mayor" gets nothing relevant. Closedmouth (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced in universe plot regurgitation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it fails WP:WEB. Only external links are website and competitor's website. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Computer-supported collaborative learning. Sandstein 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Essay, looks like original research, or at the very least a synthesis. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This entire section has been moved to CSCL. I have also worked to clean up the existing information in CSCL. MiShe11e38 (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Heartland. MBisanz talk 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom, contested prod. This is a dictionary definition, insufficient evidence of significant coverage of the concept in reliable sources. McWomble (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found this while RC patrolling, tagged it at first for a COI. Further research found nothing about this person, or any award mentioned hence it fails WP:N and a link to a blog like site indicates WP:PROMOTION. Also note that there is still a WP:COI issue. Marcusmax(speak) 04:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion was refused based on a claim made in the article, but I can still only find 8 unique google hits related to this individual, and it is totally unreferenced. I have tried searching via Polish google, and have received similar results. roleplayer 03:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a repository of loosely-connected topics. Arguably, WP:NOT#FAQ also applies.
Let me expand on the second point a minute, as it's perhaps less obvious. Alternative medicine is a huge, diverse field - each aspect of Alternative medicine has its own jargon, and there's very little overlap. The glossary makes no attempt to deal with this, instead providing random collections of definitions from whereever, ranging from "Index of articles on CAM" (A list of links, filed under I!) Various other sets of links appear somewhat randomly throughout, as it doesn't actually stick to defining terms, but also seeks to duplicate some of the alt-med category trees. Then we get random interjections (Asklepios, Lifestyle), really really obscure therapies that don't even have a Wikipedia article or very little of one, (Bioecological medicine, Group modalities, plus Tibetan eye chart is a one-line stub, and Grahamism redirects to Sylvester Graham, in which article you will find none of the information listed in the glossary) and so on.
While there are probably some subjects that might benefit from a glossary, alternative medicine is perhaps one of the worst choices for such an undertaking. It's far too broad and too disconnected. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested ProD, non-notable local politician, fails WP:BIO#Politicians and WP:BLP1E, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He got a lot of coverage for being 18 and running after all. If I could have help making these source links work.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBTMANIAC (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back again under a slightly different title. Previously deleted on several occasions (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The E.N.D. (The Energy Never Dies) (3rd nomination) for most recent). Nothing appears to have changed in the meantime. References cited are forum and blog posts - themselves admitting that the information is only rumoured. Delete per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL and arguments in past AfDs. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Non-notable self-published book, not even available on Amazon.com. Page contains numerous external links to non-existent pages in an apparent effort to falsely fluff up its importance. bd2412 T 01:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
— 74.64.120.155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) — RyanCross (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable film. Does not meet WP:NF. Non-dropframe (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this 2-year old cigar company meets the WP:CORP notability standard. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 17:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, WP:BLP. Could be redirected to Love Arcade if that article does not get deleted. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO, notable information can really be included in SEN 1116. Also seems a bit WP:FANCRUFT Michellecrisp (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Notability is marginal, but if there's no consensus to delete after 12 days, it's time to default to keep and move on. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined a speedy on this article because this biography asserts notability but may not pass WP:BIO. According to Kasnie (talk · contribs), this article has been "deleted for not meeting notability guidelines on Polish Wikipedia and should likewise be deleted from English Wikipedia." Cunard (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. and non emerging either StarM 04:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable porn actress. No independent reliable source prove any notability per WP:PORNBIO. Seems to be WP:COPY, but I'm not sure. Tosqueira (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo single in US only, never released commerically at any stage Paul75 (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to GHV2#GHV2_Megamix. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo single only. Paul75 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo release only. Pointless article with no references, the information can easily be assimilated in the You Can Dance page. Paul75 (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced and suspected conflict of interest: article created by User:Anna_kaise, a single purpose account who also posted the band's image on commons, and edited by another IP editor. There are no indications as to how the group passes any of the criteria of WP:BAND in terms of nation-wide tours, or independent review of albums. WP is not Youtube or myspace. 148 Ghits -other than the band's own youtube/myspace links, the vast majority of hits are generic in nature. OINK! Ohconfucius (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet biographical notability standards. Since the article uses a pen name for the author of a column with a narrow audience, there will not be any reliable sources. —— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record label. No in-depth, independent coverage provided, none found. I found several passing mentions, but nothing to indicate this is a notable label. TN‑X-Man 17:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a language nobody speaks described on someone's Geocities website. The proposer of the subject this article is about is "anonymous" because all he did was post it to Geocities. Fails WP:WEB in all sorts of ways. Shii (tock) 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"delete non-notable, non-verifiable, no sources except its own website.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article consists of a dictionary definition and "case study". A previous editor has commented that "I still think this is a bit unencyclopedic". In essence, the definition may have a place in wictionary (though it is not very accurate) and the case study may be an event worthy of its own article. However, without the case study (which is an entirely random example) this is just a dicdef. The article is far from encyclopaedic and reeks of an essay and original research. Emeraude (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - good work, people. DS (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, only refs are from the band's site, the label's site and a page promoting the band. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]