The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website that reads like an advertisement. I nominated it for speedy deletion, but User:Sj removed the tag saying "add references, please", although no sources had been added. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 23:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If a redirect is wanted, or a merger, the nominator or any other editor can do it. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merged/Irrelevant Tzaquiel (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable ethnic group. There are only 224 such people according to the article, and I can't find any reliable sources proving notability. Tavix | Talk 22:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted G11 NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant spam, but speedy reverted by another user with oddly similar interests to creator. MuffledThud (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion contested. No evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Tabercil (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Give this anothe rcoule of months before revisiting it if necessary Fritzpoll (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not appear to meet the notability guideline for fringe theories, which specifies that "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." The article does not appear to contain any such reference, nor have I been able to find one. Nor does the article appear to meet the general notability guideline. In my opinion the article should thus probably be deleted as being non-notable.Locke9k (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, a theory can't simply opt out of scientific review. This article is describing a proposed explanation for observed phenomena; an explanation that is not accepted by the scientific mainstream. As per the arbcom decision on the topic (see wikipedia policy on neutral point of view in relation to pseudoscience or fringe theories for a good start point for reading about this) that qualifies this as pseudoscience and a fringe theory. There is a very clear ruling on the matter that applies to this case. Finally, the material I removed in this article was rambling, not clearly related to the subject matter, had no third party references establishing notability, and appeared to exaggerate certain points of view through the promotion of non-notable facts. I don't feel that restoring it or removing it affects this AFD since the material includes no notability-establishing references. Locke9k (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. Article reads like an advertisement Untick (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability disputed. Not everyone who has written emedicine articles needs a Wikipedia article. Current content fails WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability disputed. If a doctor's main achievement is a report on a previously described condition occuring in pregnancy, then this falls well short of WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont want to be the only one backing this. I think if as they said, scopus showed few citations. Then maybe this is an article that does not need to be on wiki. I am ok with its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So this got me thinking. This is a great chance to improve wiki. Maybe for the notability guideline, a certain score system should be established i.e "number of scopus citations" or the such. It would avoid future articles like this and debates like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. And I guess to emphasize this, I looked at the h-index of some dermatology greats such as Albert Bernard Ackerman and Ronald Rapini. THey were not remarkable at 13 and not even above 10. So if these people are considered notable, at least everyone in derm does, then the notability thing is really tough to figure out. And again, the issue to emphasize here is that derm deals with orphan diseases. And except for a few skin cancers and other things like psoraisis, almost everything is as rare as it comes and thus focusing on h-index is not a great way to go. I dont know, whats the best way to decide this? I talked to some other dermies and they are not interested in joining the wiki bandwagon. So it will be tough to get this area expanded and to know who are the notables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per User:Plastikspork's rational. kilbad (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently fails WP:NFF; no evidence that filming has commenced, and scant evidence to suggest that the project is still active. PC78 (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled from db-copyvio deletion queue. 3 problems: 1. I removed a large chunk of copyvio of http://www.mp3.com/artist/joanie-bartels/summary/ (click on "expand"). 2. Although one cassette is said to have sold 2 million copies, the deleted copyvio (check history) also says that she was only credited in "fine print", and that people began to recognize her "later", although nothing specific is said about how she was recognized or how many albums she sold after that, and I don't see other significant assertions of notability 3. The tone before I removed the copyvio could be considered promotional. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only real 'notable' thing about the film is that Roger Ebert gave it a 0 star review, the producer wrote back and Ebert responded, which the director later used to promote his film. Is that enough to warrant an article on it? CyberGhostface (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Deletion withdrawn--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD - No reliable sources, cannot be verified independently, reads like an Advertisement MLauba (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Naming issues etc can be resolved outside of AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article strikes me as an unsalvageable coatrack. It's an essay, and its contents are all summarised in better, more neutral fashion elsewhere. Some choice excerpts:
It seems clear such speculations do not belong here. - Biruitorul Talk 17:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Biruitorul Talk 17:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After Aymatth2's cleanup work, and given broad consensus for keeping/merging, I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination. - Biruitorul Talk 15:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly an original research. I could not find any sources on the web. See also the discussion here. Oda Mari (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Various. I hate multiple noms, and I hate closing them :) Mostly, this is because the arguments for deleting one article are "inherited" by another that may be sufficiently different. In this case, there is no single policy governing this kind of article, which means that mass nomination complicates, rather than simplifies this process and guarantees only that there will be disappointment for all sides. Nonetheless, that diatribe at an end, the discussion indicates a variety of results.
Finally, can I comment that comments of the variety of "better in another article", "redundant to existing article" etc. suggest an editorial alternative to an AfD - redirects and merges, which can be done without us ending up in these rather complex retention disputes. Can I suggest, before I have to spend another 20 minutes picking another nomination apart, discussing this centrally first rather than coming to the melting pot of AfD? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating as a batch a few prodded articles that were contested (albeit without reason). Greece has very tenuous relations with all these countries: no embassies in some of them, no historic, cultural or significant political or economic ties with any of them. Where Greek communities exist, separate articles are already in place: Greeks in Uruguay, Greeks in Cuba, Greeks in Panama. Existence of embassies is covered at Diplomatic missions of Greece and at equivalent articles for the other countries. As relations between these pairs does not seem to go beyond mere existence of bilateral ties, the articles should be deleted, per strong recent precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moldova–South Korea relations, etc. Biruitorul Talk 17:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This player has only played in one single match in 1914 and, even if it was in the Major League Baseball, I doubt that makes him notable. WP:SINGLEEVENT recommends that if the role played by an individual is not significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. Laurent (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Not very strong arguments on either side - I would suggest placing a redirect to the main article on te Summer Youth Games to preserve the history until more sources can be found. However, I cannot substitute this compromise as an AfD result, so please consider discussing this. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Nothing notable to say about this event yet. Per WP:CRYSTAL, this article should only be created when we have reliable sources that discuss cities' intentions to bid. This is the same criteria we have for articles such as 2028 Summer Olympics (which exists) and 2032 Summer Olympics (which doesn't). Although on the surface it may seem inconsistent that we have an article about the main Games for 2028, but should not have an article about this event (10 years earlier), the difference is that we have reliable sources about several cities for 2028, while no such source exists for any city for the 2018 Youth Games. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article notable or not? I cannot make head or tail out of it. I suspect that it may be complete WP:OR. WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR The article has just been extensively referenced, to the point where I no longer believe an AfD is the way to proceed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for ""Limited Capacity Model for Messages Processing"" turned up only this Wikipedia article. (see below for two refs) I had held off AfDing it to give it a chance to grow, then I saw that the article creator had personally attacked the deleting admin of his SOAP article here, so I can no longer assume good faith. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Rewritten during the AfD. Issues of redirect, merging, etc. are beyond scope in this particular AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears similar to an already existing, and more comprehensive other article.
"Usage guides or slang and idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not. See "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook" below for more information. For a wiki that is a collection of guidebooks, visit our sister project Wikibooks. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of a language should be transwikied there."
bwmcmaste (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]"Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, however, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well."
"British slang" won't work; there is an enormous variety of it, varying between regions, and if it is a list (as this is) there will be confusion about what is British (I notice 5-Oh as supposed British slang for the police!!) and what is slang rather than dialect or other regional varieties of English.
Perhaps this page should be a disambiguation page listing and linking varieties of British slang? pablohablo. 19:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts have been made to start an article here. Witness this for example. But they never garnered much more encyclopaedic content than that one sentence, before being restructured from a U.S.-centric point-of-view, upon which a dictionary almost imediately began to grow. Eventually the only encyclopaedic content that was even attempted was lost by a poor vandalism reversion and to cleanup efforts. An expert was called for, but none came before this AFD nomination. This edit summary said it all. This is an example of how not to write an encyclopaedia article.
As the edit summaries said, a complete rewrite is needed, and until an article is actually written, with some encyclopaedic content, we are best off reverting back to the redirects that were in place right at the start, either to British English or London slang. In other words: The first attempt to write an article here was clobbered in its infancy, and wasn't even good then. What we have now is not an article, and not even stub material. Revert to the original redirects and start again. Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW - clearly notable artist. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially non-notable artist. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO in that he, a footballer, has never played a professional game in his sport. No prejudice for recreation if he plays. Punkmorten (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The significant arguments to keep were based on the notion that candidates for national office are or should be notable, though consensus from previous discussions as per the WP:POLITICIAN guideline, is that failed candiates are not notable. SilkTork *YES! 02:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only claim to notability is that this person is a candidate for a nomination in an election, which under WP:POLITICIAN does not count as notability. Prod tag removed without explanation as part of an edit supposedly correcting the person's education. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - He has been in politics for a long period of time and is an important politician ofVirginia. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE in that he's never actually appeared for that club Ironholds (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the fence about this one, but this doesn't really seem to assert notability. It's been maintenance tagged to the point that the tags nearly outweigh the article. I've tried discussing with the page's creator, who is either unwilling to add secondary sources (all sources are from a personal website) or simply doesn't know how. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW delete. WP:V issues, apparent hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A hoax. Pete Docter has denied making a sequel, because they have no good ideas for it. Alientraveller (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declined CSD, as schools are specifically excluded from A7. Nonetheless, appears to be a non-notable private school. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer, prod was removed without explanation even though the player fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN having never played professional football at any level King of the North East 14:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason King of the North East 14:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable festival. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. (G3) as blatant misinformation. Mgm|(talk) 12:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax, Google shows nothing related. Users only (non deleted) contribution. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to No Age. MBisanz talk 10:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails wp:MUSIC. Prod was removed without indicating notability. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-05t13:55z 13:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Cinemax. MBisanz talk 10:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the marketing name for an informal time block on one network sufficient for a stand-alone article? Recommend Merge with Cinemax. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unwieldy list that is mostly unsourced and almost unavoidably prone to out-of-date and inaccurate information. Very few of the conductors listed are notable enough for a Wikipedia article; so combined with the unsourced and unreliable information this article serves neither as an informative list nor as a navigation aid. ~ mazca t|c 22:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declining db-spam. The first 50 of 1200 Google hits didn't establish notability; nothing on news.google.com; a few hits on Google's blog search FWIW. I would have ((db-web))'d it if I had had the patience to skim all 1200 Google hits, but I didn't. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After searching the internet for more resources, I could not find any that would indicate this entity passing WP:MUSIC. The references and external links are equally unhelpful. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok the article is bad now since all the deletions. No one even dare to make any additions to this page since it constantly been a subject for deleting. Come on guys this is a well known band. In my opinion it is VERY hard to understand what is needed and what references are needed. Is this a link that could be used as a reference.[25] or [26]
I mean there is tons of reviews and articles about Anekdoten on the web but nothing seems to be proper. Please let me know what is needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramyth1 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Anekdoten has signed to Kscope recently. I don't think Kscope home of Porcupine Tree, No-Man & Richard Barbieri would release an Anthology with the band if they weren't a notable band. They have toured worldwide on many occasions as well. If you search Anekdoten on google they get 20 000 hits.
I made an interview with Niklas Barker back in 2004 and you can read it at the following url: http://www.rockprog.com/Rock/specials.htm, select Anekdoten. There is also several concert reviews spanning from 2003 up to 2007 at http://www.rockprog.com/Rock/news.htm. We have also made album reviews regardnig the albums Vemod(release 1993), Nucleus( 1995), Gravity(2003) and A Time Of Day(2007). select Progressive Rock at http://www.rockprog.com/Rock/rock.htm. You can also se pictures from several concerts with Anekdoten at http://www.rockprogpics.com, for example: http://www.rockprogpics.com/Media.aspx?AlbumID=141 Regards Claes Hassel at www.rockprog.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.182.24.235 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (Withdrawn by nominator. I'mperator 12:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG. I did a news search, and could not find anything. Formerly deleted as uncontested PROD, but recreated again. Arsenikk (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Thanks to those who cleaned the article up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is titled WKNZ, but repeatedly mentions WLVZ as the callsign. However, the link between the station and either of the callsigns isn't actually backed up with reliable references. Nor is the notability of the station established. Delete Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Times of Malta" article doesn't seem to mention the subject; the "Independent" news article does not exist. I cannot establish notability. Chzz ► 09:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added more sources from Maltese media. These include the launch of his European Parliament campaign and some famous legal cases he worked on recently. Pierremizzi (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find reliable secondary sources to support notability Chzz ► 08:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki.gcc (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]"One of Shaksy Group’s recent projects is the extension of the Salalah Port. “We built the port and did the marine works for liquefied natural gas,” explains Mr. Ali. “We recently got a $30 million contract to supply pipes to PDO oil rigs.” Mr. Ali says that each of the Shaksy companies plays a role in Oman’s infrastructure development." [1]
Also, here is another third party source on The Shaksy Group's involvement on the Port of Salalah: http://www.zawya.com/projects/project.cfm?pid=080607092115&cc . Hani Archiroden is listed as one of two contractors for the project.Wiki.gcc (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]"The Oman supplement was created by Summit Communications (“Summit”) who is dedicated to raising the profile of the world's most dynamic emerging markets. As an independent communications agency specializing in the production of special country, regional, and sectoral promotional reports, Summit has acquired extensive experience in analyzing the issues important to the business and financial communities of the United States. Through an exclusive arrangement with The New York Times Advertising Department, Summit has published over 112 reports since 1999, reaching the most influential decision-makers in the American political, financial, and economic communities."[2]
The other source doesn't actually provide any information apart from, as you say, mentioning a company name in the field of a form. Uncle G (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and do note we are only talking about one subsidiary of The Shaksy Group. There are another two construction companies, an operational Oil Drilling company, as well as Oil & Gas trading companies in Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and India. Wiki.gcc (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]"Two experienced firms were chosen (Hani Archirodon and Consolidated Contractors Co. Oman) to execute the project of expanding the port by constructing two new docks."[3]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NB. No substantial coverage, and the author's notability is as a radio host much more so than as an author. MSJapan (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No context or content, just a tracklisting. Also nominating related articles below. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No context, just a tracklisting. Also nominating related articles below. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was merged once, but restored by other contributors who claimed notability without providing any sources. I could find no sources that meet WP: RS or don't violate WP:PSTS. Jeremy (blah blah) 03:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - article does not assert or support notablity; sources used are not adequate by Wikipedia standards. Will in China (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious WP:POVFORK of Politics of Cuba. It is also something of a WP:COATRACK, created by a user who has repeatedly attempted to insert WP:BLP-violating content into Fidel Castro. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Politics in Cuba is not suitable article for corruption related studies, because corruption is not limited to politics. Corruption happens at all levels of the government like the book Corruption in Cuba by Sergio Diaz-Briquets and Jorge F. Pérez-López says. See also Corruption in Paraguay, Corruption in China, Corruption in Kenya, Corruption in Angola, Corruption in Ghana, Corruption in Armenia... Luis Napoles (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD has been off to a slow start, so I've done some friendly noticing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cuba, Talk:Fidel Castro, Talk:Cuba, and Talk:Politics of Cuba. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:POVFORK, WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP. Also feel it unfairly singles out Cuba. "Corruption in country X" articles are questionable in general. --Athenean (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cosmic Latte, you claimed that the article is a WP:POVFORK or WP:COATRACK, but there is almost nothing about corruption in Politics in Cuba. Were you thinking of merging? Luis Napoles (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (A7) by Tnxman307. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 16:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No claims to notability, can't find anything at all on the net apart from a couple of bloggy sites and forums. No awards, no reviews, no major coverage, fails WP:BAND Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 10:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable film company Theresa Knott | token threats 08:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to expand Wikipedia which I use and enjoy. If this information is unwanted here then please delete the pages ASAP. Because speaking from experience having the deletion notices at the top of the pages is harmful to his submissions to film fests, which in turn could harmfully affect his career. This was not my intention. When we see things like that as judges it influences our decisions negatively and I don't want this to affect any of his submissions. Thank you.Cinesven
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 10:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May not meet notability guidelines. One new member was a former member of a few mildly notable bands. I can't find any reliable coverage. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; no one else recommended deletion WP:SK — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not meet WP:RS, causing this article to fail notability guidelines. The sources are press releases... and copies of emails... OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt a single pizza parlor established in 2004 qualifies as a notable company. JaGatalk 07:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAM: Previously deleted via Afd, and at least once again since, it still reads like an ad/press release.
TIMELINE
WP:NOTE was only one of the complaints mentioned when this article was discussed and deleted in 2006. The content of the article remains substantially unchanged, still reads like an ad, and otherwise provides virtually no encyclopedic information. —Danorton (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ryulong is right that specific guidelines for television series/show notability have not yet been fully discerned. That means that the fallback is WP:N, and the consensus is that the sources are absent. WIll happily userfy for an eventual return to mainspace when the sources are found Fritzpoll (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information does not have external coverage present in verifiable reliable sources, and thus does not have the possibility of justifying independent notability. The sources that have been found include fansites, video websites, forum postings, etc. —Mythdon (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 05:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the incident received world-wide media attention, this particular article fails WP:BIO1E. The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN as he is a non-notable mayor of a town that is 0.6 sq. miles in size. It seems to be a redundant rewrite of Berwyn Heights drug raid. It's me...Sallicio! 05:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-->
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song; fails criteria at WP:NSONGS. fuzzy510 (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article seems to be a logical argument for why the article itself is not notable. ;o/ OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Recurring characters in the Sonic the Hedgehog series. MBisanz talk 05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purely original research which is redundant to Recurring characters in the Sonic the Hedgehog series. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Yellowcard. MBisanz talk 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned group founded by the lead singer of Yellowcard whose current catalog consists of four songs on Myspace. Might be worth a full article in the future, but not at this point. fuzzy510 (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a soccer player who fails to meet the notability standards at WP:N, WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN; article should be re-created if and when he makes a professional appearance JonBroxton (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep If the highest level of college football, baseball and basketball players are deemed notable by most decisions on WP, I see no reason why college soccer players shouldn't be as well. Players drafted should be considered notable as they are considered the highest professional prospects in their professional league —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elomen76 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Energy healer without reliable 3rd party coverage. Her "intuitions" do not seem to be well documented. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to RuneScape . MBisanz talk 00:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability, and if references to it can be considered notability, it goes into too much detail in the game, considering that there are no other articles on individual places within RuneScape.--Pig house (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently no references for this article, and I cannot find any either. The only sources available are self-published. Google search of "Open Blog" only produced false positives, so I also tried Tomaž Muraus, the developers name. Any decent review of the product should mention the main developer, but I cannot find any. The article has not been the subject of multiple, independent works in reliable sources. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Atmoz (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first article was A7'd but the recreation's speedy was declined. This article is about a nonnotable band that fails WP:BAND. There are three citations to newspapers in this article and there's a reason for those three, as they are the only mentions the band has recieved. Not only that, but the mentions are trivial and do not provide the in-depth coverage required by WP:N. They haven't made it to any major charts nor have they released any albums by any major labels. They don't even have an official page outside of Myspace. ThemFromSpace 17:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iffy notability, compounded by large amounts of WP:OR, such as "e had a smile an a twinkle in his eyes. Thanks to Joe's visits to our house I was the only kid in my elementary school who knew many Cohan and other Broadway tunes by heart. After my step dad died in the 1970's my mom lost touch with Joe. I could find no records of a wife or children. But I do not believe Joe ever married. He was called a bachelor by my mom. I was going thru old pictures the other day and came across a few of Joe. I did an internet search and found no picture or biography of him. i did find that he lived until 2001. I wish I would have kept in touch with him, I thought he had passed away years before. I desided to do an brief internet biography of him. If you have any infomation or pictures of Joe, please made them available on the internet if you can. I was unable to find much information on Joe, so I called the Screen Acotr Guild(SAG) in California. SAG was very helpful and I could not have done this biography without them. Thank you SAG for keeping Joe's memory alive. Deedee from Detroit." Ironholds (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a fictional town in a video game. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a work-in-progress, and its just fun, i'll surprise my friends with it one day. i just started. please don't delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirdbrain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essay / original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete: As original research. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reasons that you think that this is an essay, or original research, is that it used Harvard referencing (a perfectly valid referencing style for a Wikipedia article), repeated its title in the article body, and didn't use the correct markup. The fact that it was unwikified entirely slewed your opinions, and those opinions have no basis in policy whatsoever.
You should have read the article properly, ignoring (or — better yet! — fixing) the cleanup issues. Had you done so, you'd have found a source cited for every single point in the article, and that these sources were things like Dr. Chanthika Pornpitakpan, a professor at the University of Macau, writing in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. This isn't a Wikipedia editor writing up previously unpublished ideas directly in Wikpiedia, which is what actually would be covered by the original research policy here. This is a Wikipedia editor writing content entirely based upon reliable sources and citing those sources in full. We could hardly ask for better (except that it be properly wikified).
The irony here is so thick as to be almost tangible. This is a perfectly valid subject, as documented in many places such as pages 286 et seq. of ISBN 9780765613158 (q.v.), and an article whose only faults are being in need of cleanup and expansion, which actually explains that people favour presentation over substance. There is no reason supported by deletion policy for deleting this. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, your discussion of "sin" is a straw man of your own construction. No-one except you yourself has said that you have sinned. There's nothing "aggressive" about pointing out where policy has been grossly, and ironically, mis-applied in a way that it does not actually apply at all. (Hint: There are, sadly, plenty of examples of aggression on Wikipedia. It generally looks like this or this. Spot the quite marked difference? No-one has called you ignorant, useless, or impertinent, or told you to "grow up and shut the fuck up". And the only person who has called you a sinner is you yourself.)
Finally, you ask for votes. This is not a vote, and the above is an opinion with an explanation. It's a quite clear explanation of how policy does not apply in the way that you assert it to apply, and what the error is that you've all made. (It's not the first time that people have looked at an unwikified article and not seen past the markup.) In yet further irony, you talk of explanations when your 3-word rationale is devoid of any explanation at all. This only serves to highlight your further error in stating that I'm explaining your reason to you. Quite the contrary, I'm taking your reason exactly as it was written: that the Wikipedia:No original research policy purportedly applied. You either don't understand that policy in the slightest, or you didn't look at the sources cited and didn't look beyond the style of the article to its substance. I took it that you understood the policy, but didn't read the article and see its actual substance, including the reliable sources that it cited in support of every single part of its content, for the unwikification and the Harvard referencing — as so many have done before you (Despite Wikipedia style guidelines, I've observed a significant bias against Harvard referencing at AFD over the years.), and that is spectacularly ironic in this particular case, given what this article's subject in fact is. You could have been simply sheep voting, of course, but I didn't work on that assumption.
When someone makes an error, it's quite legitimate to point out that it is an error. You weren't "targetted for trying to apply standards". You were told that you were doing things wrongly, and not actually applying our policies. You were not applying our standards, in any way. The route to not getting a complete misapplication of policy being pointed out by other people is to not mis-apply it in the first place, not to try to distract the discussion onto the subject of the people who point out such errors when they happen. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go and read the handbook to see what more there is to write. Indeed, read page 345, where it summarizes what social psychologists have found out about attractiveness and how it affects processing and cognitive response, and compare it to how Wikipedia editors have demonstrably responded when an unwikified and unattractive stub with (excessive) Harvard referencing is added to Wikipedia. Some social psychologist somewhere is probably thinking of making this a case study. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as to breadth: We not only have the latter book that I mention here, relating source credibility to police procedures, but even sources like ISBN 9780805074031 who connect it to Rush Limbaugh. In between, as already observed, we have this concept's applications in communication theory, advertising, marketing, and so forth. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declining deletion as db-spam and taking to AfD; some "cultural sensitivity" won't hurt here (i.e. U.S. is incredibly perceived as self-promotional, and a quick deletion might come across as denying Luxembourg even a little self-promotion) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. obvious hoax DGG (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joke... but just in case you doubt that, consider these points:
Okay, let's delete it already. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of reliable sources on the topic. The book is self-published and the journal articles do not deal with this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, Anaxial - Thanks. Here they are:
Well, this is frustrating...I created the article, asked for assistance, responded to concerns, made changes to address the concerns, asked for help again, and find that instead it's proposed for speedy deletion.
Addressing the assertions made above: At least three different authors are cited in this article, not just one. One of the publications is peer-reviewed in a medical journal. The program is discussed by major agencies and newspapers. These are noted in the external links section, where I was told to put them. (More details in the article's talk page.) I hope people will opt to assist, as has been requested multiple times to no avail, rather than simply vote for deletion. Deress (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more... Re: fringe. (Conventional) medical doctors refer patients to this program. Also, I had put a 'hang on' note atop the article. It is now gone. Is that simply normal procedure or a rejection of that request? Noticed that the pages describing various forms of problems suggest folks assist with an article rather than simply pop it up for deletion. That was good to see. Deress (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim - Do you mean simply include a reference to G-A-P-S in the SCD article? If so, I actually tried that originally, but eds kept deleting it out. (I asked for help there, too, but none came.) Deress (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POV, WP:ESSAY. Based on heavily partisan and unreliable WP:RS. I wonder if an article titled Palestinian violence would be legitimate balance to this one. Shuki (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shuki (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Website fails WP:WEB, it has not been covered in any third-party reliable sources. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unreferenced autobiography, only peacock claims of notability. RadioFan (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deletion (closed early per WP:SNOW). -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Micronation consisting of a single person's farm with zero notability or reliable sources. It seems to have a COI issue as well. Wperdue (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maxistan is not a hoax, we are not looking to "take advantage" of people for financial gain or any other reason. We are a micronation just like all others, we occupy real territory, have our own constitution, currency and government. This page is legitimate and truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxtmartin (talk • contribs) 03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. Why in hell would the prod be contested? You do realize this "Emperor" is 15 years old, right? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with extreme prejudice Hoax. FlyingToaster 09:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability requirements for a future film, per WP:NFF Chzz ► 08:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Reliable sources to assert notability Chzz ► 07:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally fails WP:NB (notability for books). The only hits are for the book's website, its publisher's website, a blog, and sites that sell the book. It has won no awards, and has received no other attention that would even make it borderline notable. MSJapan (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that this eroge is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic content; not suitable for Wikipedia. CJ Miller. (That's my name.Don't wear it out.) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced only to imdb, not a reliable source, this biography does not show the significant coverage in 3rd party sources to meet our inclusion guidelines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete voice actress who has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two authors whose claim of notability is being the co-authors of a yet-to-be-released book. The book is nominated as well. Looks altogether promotional in nature. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced list that has the potential of being a WP:BLP nightmare, not even worth a category Delete Secret account 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by SchuminWeb, (CSD A7, was an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability Gloryarea12345 (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Software with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the facts cannot be checked. Problems with verifability - most of the links lead to the official site (delphic.org). Иван Москалев (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's essential nomination - the problem is there is no realiable source for notability and correctness of this algorithm. The main idea of the Pbit is to use radix sort on lists - nothing new. There is no academic paper about this algorithm. All found by google were written by the author of the algorithm. Due to no academic review it should be considered as OR. Arxiv allow nearly everybody to publish his paper - so the link in article is not realiable. Author of algorithm is unknown to scientists databases. Mathel (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz talk 10:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Term in question is notable only to a very small group of people, fails WP:NOTE. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and that is exactly what this term is all about. Even the refs provided don't establish notability... they took me a long time to find (making Wikipedia:Verifiability a tough argument), but once I did, it simply proved my point, that even within the United States Marine Corps, the term has little notability, importance, or usage. There is no real third-party source for the etymology of the term either, and Wiktionary would be a better place for this. Only Google hit is WP itslef. Argyll (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability (beyond this being a concert tour, which to my knowledge does not constitute inherent notability). Also violates WP:NOTDIR. Biruitorul Talk 18:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. Google news archive search turns up a grand total of one hit, which seems to be a press release. The provided citation in the article does not directly deal with the subject of the article. No notability is established, nor is any evidence of notability able to be found. No real assertion of notability is made in the article. In addition, due to lack of reliable sources, the verifiability of the article's claims is in doubt The Seeker 4 Talk 19:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kensei has several large profile clients including Live Nation and Northcliffe Media. The Kensei Media website was officially launched around 1 week ago, and as such has not been fully indexed by search engines. Because they have not had a web site until recently, none of their partners or clients sites link to kenseimedia.com. However, their platform has been powering an increasing number of web sites since 2007 - now estimated to be around 500 web and mobile sites. Grimfandango (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the organisations who use the platform, and added more citations and links. As a start-up though, there isn't much information on the web. Grimfandango (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Wikipedia is not for advertising, and when I wrote the article it was not my intention to advertise the company. The article doesn't make any grandiose statements, just states the truth, and when KM now power a reasonable number of sites I thought adding KM to Wikipedia would be ok. As for no reliable third-party sources, these will only come in time (see previous comment). Large organisations rarely (if ever) put out press-releases about a start-up who powered their latest project. However, I concede it may be impossible at this time to establish notability beyond my own statements, so if the entry has to go, it has to go. A few months down the line, when there's more information on the web, would it be ok to resubmit then? Grimfandango (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find substantial reliable sources to confirm notability. There are some passing references in news sources, no more. tedder (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just realized that I am technically a major contributor to this article, as I wrote the one line stub as it stands. Fairly agnostic here; the subject is a major cast member of both Broadway and touring versions (from what I gathered from sources at the time) of a major Broadway show (Rent, which I had heard of :)) and didn't meet CSD, but I couldn't really find enough to build an article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]