For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. This 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 04:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tommy Forecast[edit]
- Tommy Forecast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. This should be re-created one the player plays at least one professional football match. Tedaram (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Normally I would say delete, but Forecast is an emergency loan and will make his debut in tomorrow's game, as he was signed to cover for Nick Colgan who is injured. Footballgy (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Forecast made his first team debut for Grimsby Town today. Prof bed (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. deleting as duplicate. tedder (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Honorary Title (album)[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- The Honorary Title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Duplicate of The Honorary Title EP GrahamHardy (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. No need for a duplicate article and a redirect would not make sense given that the article and the target have the same name. Rlendog (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Baader-Meinhof phenomenon[edit]AfDs for this article:
This page is composed almost entirely of OR backed up with pseudoscientific psych-speak. If it has been documented in any notable source (which excludes damninteresting.com, thank you), I have been unable to find it. An earlier AfD seemed to fail mostly on the basis that the original nominator was unregistered and initially bungled the application. At the very least, complete the merge into synchronicity, which seems to be synonymous but actually has legitimate documentation. Angio (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=12A047FC9855DBC0&p_docnum=1 http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=129F4C77823867B8&p_docnum=2 with the text from each (and claim that these small quotes are permissible under fair use):
from the first, and here's the second:
Actually, this article has been deleted before; http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon_%28deleted_24_Jul_2008_at_20:31%29 Here's a local blogger using the term: http://jennydagle.blogspot.com/2007/02/baader-meinhof-phenomenon.html And here's a reference to a book using the term: http://www.harmlessfraud.com/?p=1210 htom (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] On My Way (Billy Boy on Poison Song)[edit]
NN single, does not inheret notability from band, no evidence of charting or widespread mainstream coverage. →ROUX ₪ 20:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Price of Love[edit]
Article does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. As well as this, the track has never been released as a single, and the only information in the article simply describes the song's lyrics. SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 23:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] David Crawford (colonel)[edit]
Nominating as I feel doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. The House of Burgesses did qualify at times as a first-level sub-national political office, but at the time of Crawford's election to it (1692), it's influence was severely limited (quoted below) (according it's own article) "In 1624, the Virginia Company lost its charter, and Virginia became a royal colony. As a Royal Colony, the House of Burgesses consisted of two members from every county in Virginia and one member from each of the following: the City of Williamsburg, the City of Jamestown, the City of Norfolk, and the College of William and Mary. The House of Burgesses continued to meet, but its influence was severely restricted. Despite limitations on its actions..." This situation appears to continue until it's dissolution in 1769. I would argue that this means that Crawford was not elected to a first-level sub-national political office. Fol de rol troll (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Quinn Sullivan[edit]
not notable, bad sources Jonathan Williams (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Stuart Addis[edit]
Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at fully-professional level of football. No citations or sources so fails WP:GNG. Plays in a semi-pro league with attendances of sometimes just a few hundred so fails WP:N.Kevinoleary12 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Deltum[edit]AfDs for this article:
I have listed this article for deletion because it is a neologism without source. Thanks V. Joe (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Project 6D[edit]
Non-notable "upcoming" low-budget film, another in a series of articles from this author about non-notable, probably amateur, films by one John W Stevenson - see AfDs for Semisonic (film), Pine (film) and Cold Glass. No sources, nothing in Google or IMDb; fails WP:NF. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kevin Ertell[edit]
Non-notable biospam. Some senior management positions but nothing else. Prod declined. Main editor has also added references since the prod, but the references are to the Myspace page of the subject's non-notable band. Probably an autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete and redirect to Lord Haw-Haw. Consensus here is that the current subject of the article is insufficiently notable, and that those searching for the term are far more likely to be looking for the radio announcer. ~ mazca talk 12:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] HawHaw[edit]
All that I can find is download sites. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Soft Redirect to wiktionary. Black Kite 21:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bathophobia[edit]
No valid sources besides various dictionaries and phobia lists that such phobia indeed exists. In other words, it is just a word, and its place is in wiktionary. Laudak (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 17:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Leon Smith - Karma around the world[edit]
There was a prod nomination, but it had been previously deprodded in June: "No relevant google hits I can find, which suggest this was not an achievement of lasting fame. Many people have sailed alone around the world before this, so it's no record. With only a small-town newpaper as a reference, so lacks verifiability." I can verify that he made the trip with this snippet:[7], but this man and his journey aren't notable. Fences&Windows 23:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep as new evidence shows he passes WP:ATHLETE Black Kite 11:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Panushanth Kulenthiran[edit]
This player fails both WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport" - no evidence to show he has played for either Palermo or the Sri Lankan national team) and WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Recreate if & when he meets either of these guidelines in the future. This article is a contested PROD; no rationale was given for the removal of the PROD. GiantSnowman 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Panphonics[edit]
Company with no evidence of notability, prod removed WuhWuzDat 13:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Huge in the horror community is not the same as meeting our inclusion standards through multiple reliable sources and IMDB isn't a reliable source Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Zombie Hunters: City of the Dead[edit]
Contested prod. An article about an "independent television series" with next to no reliable sources, pretty much entirely written by one user. I couldn't find any good sources on this, either, so I'm assuming this article exists to promote the show. --Conti|✉ 10:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Stones of the Lost Tomb[edit]
Zero Google hits for the name, zero Google hits for "SLT productions" + "comics," the alleged creator, zero Google hits for Zaurask Productions, the alleged previous creator. No reliable sources, so far, proffered. Fails WP:V, probable WP:COI with User:Zaurask, the SPA creator. Wikipedia is not for a comic whipped up in art class last week. RGTraynor 10:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] George Shenker[edit]
Does not seem to meet the guideline for inclusion. Searches reveal no sources to back up article's claims decltype (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Voiding this AFD. The whole thing is tainted by the copyvio thing. if anyone things this should still be deleted I suggest they renominate it in a couple of weeks Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Apollo Alliance[edit]
Copyright violations: http://apolloalliance.org/about/ and unambiguous advertisement Sophitessa (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
did you find were most unlike any indication of notability, exactly?
Pleas keep this article. It may need to be corrected, but the apollo project is a key player in the Obama Administration. To delete this would be censorship of the most dangerous kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sferral2003 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. As clearly shown, this topic does not meet our notability criteria. There was no acceptable reason put forward to keep the article. SilkTork *YES! 17:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Rupert Myers (writer)[edit]
Contested prod. Non-notable person. Zero or almost zero GNews hits (most or all hits refer to different people). Claimed basis for notability includes writing for two major newspapers, participating in 3 debates against notable people, and a trivial mention in the NYT Blog. Tim Song (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nima Abu-Wardeh , Michael Adams (journalist) , Matt Arnold , Tilly Bagshawe , Alicia Drake , Will Buckley , Sue Douglas , Jo Farrow , Richard Clements (UK journalist) or Sue Ellicott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.145.133 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) — 83.104.145.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. above duplicate !vote struck.Tim Song (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the debate films are very good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.165 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the debate films are certainly good, this article is stronger than other journalist stubs out there; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.139.76 (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC) — 82.233.139.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Catholic Roots, Mormon Harvest[edit]
Non-notable book lacking independent GHits and lacking substantial GNEWS reviews or discussion. Appears to fail WP:NB ttonyb1 (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] New Zealand Rocketry Association[edit]
created by a pure single purpose editor, fails WP:ORG, hardly anything on gnews [18], google search reveals mainly directory listings. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Tico Zamora[edit]
Non-notable backup musician, fails WP:BAND. Already speedied once, quickly recreated. —Chowbok ☠ 19:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Applebatch[edit]
delete nn website Amocool (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Living computers theory[edit]
This article is almost two years old and lacks any sources to establish notability of the concept. The only meaningful ref is a link to the author's personal web site -- clicking on it offers to download an attachment, which I am not going to do. Looie496 (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to The Concert for New York City . Spartaz Humbug! 19:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sounds from a Town I Love[edit]
No reliable non-trivial sources, and searches don't turn up anything promising. Delete or merge to
|
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hyung Jin Moon[edit]
His notability has been questioned. I personally feel that he is an important person, however others have said that he is only notable because of his relationship to his father Sun Myung Moon. I am not unbiased since I am a member of their church so I am bringing the question here. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Post peak employment theory[edit]
This article is pure original research. It does not cite any (secondary ) sources. Though it looks like quackery, I have no definitive opinion on the content, but Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, and the article should be deleted for this reason. Wefa (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Roland Teichmann[edit]
Delete one-line unsourced BLP about someone who is the head of an organization we don't have an article on. NN. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete no sources, no notability argumentWefa (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Pablo the Drug Mule Dog[edit]
Delete. Non-notable advertising campaign, failing WP:NOTE due to a lack of WP:RS. One mention in the Guardian does not warrant an article. DJ 07:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sweet Mess EP[edit]
NN album, no charting, band doesn't particularly appear to be notable so the album does not derive notability from the band. →ROUX ₪ 20:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Gossip Girl. Spartaz Humbug! 19:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keith Van Der Woodsen[edit]
Subject does not warrant its own article. Arguments to the contrary are not presented. The article has no references. I propose merging with parent article Gossip Girl Wefa (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jose Monteiro Lima[edit]
Article does not present any sources. Furthermore, even if we take all article's claims at face value, subject does not meet notability per WP:BIO - Monteiro Lima is of local relevance only Wefa (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Shaun B'Laurent[edit]
Non-notable actor, this article has been here since February and is still an orphan, the actor appears not to have had any significant roles. My speedy delete tag was removed by an IP editor who has made several edits to the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Younge Pakistan Flag Movement[edit]
A non-notable Pakistani political organization. Has not been noticed in any news articles, the only media exposure comes through youtube, and what appear to be Pakistani nationalist forums. Pstanton (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Please do not delete. This article is new and needs expansion. The organization has been featured on news channels and have gained alot of google searches. Solution: improve article, not delete. At some point somebody else would have created this article. Taeyebaar (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] proposal okay if people dont want to see this article for now then i suggest storing it away and re-publishing after people see the organization and an article is required on wiki, this article can then be restored. Taeyebaar (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Alan Theisen[edit]
Article appears to be entirely self-promotional and regarding an unremarkable subject which is not in the public interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triterubbish (talk • contribs) 19:51, May 13, 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Villeins[edit]
I don't think these guys meet WP:MUSIC just yet. Media coverage seems decidedly thin. RayTalk 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] StockPhotoFinder[edit]
Non-notable photo search finder, fails WP:WEB. Thus, it has over thousand of photos have been searched in that site. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wolf Mail[edit]
Non-notable musician. No charted hits. No significant news coverage. External links only to blog sites or his own website. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Things I Want[edit]AfDs for this article:
Non-notable song. It was not released as a single and is not covered in reliable sources. Also, the album it's on was deleted per this deletion discussion. It is by both Tenacious D and Sum 41, so a redirect isn't possible. Timmeh 22:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Possibility of merge to a single article. Black Kite 21:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Style (DVD)[edit]
Delete. Non-notable DVDs, with no reliable sources to prove notability. DJ 07:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sunrise Software[edit]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Central Broadcast News[edit]
This was originally tagged
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Pywin32[edit]
A prod was removed by the creator in January because of the trivial mentions in Google Books. All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Liliana Gil[edit]
Non-notable. There are some Google News results but they appear to be promotional press release or mentions of Gil which do not demonstrate sufficiently against Wikipedia:Notability (people). In particular the awards mentioned are corporate promotional and not recognized by the general public apart from a National Latino Award 2008 (on my count there were 18 recipients of these awards) but I do not believe that that award alone can demonstrate notability here. The article itself is a CV and requires major rewrite but as there is no reason to think independent sources (i.e. not based on J&J press releases) will demonstrate notability, deletion is the better action. The article has been marked for notability and clean-up for over 18 months with no sign of improvement. Ash (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sylvia Villagran[edit]
Non-notable voiceover artist. Lacks GHits of substance and nothing in GNEWS to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb1 (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Gianmichael Salvato[edit]
Contested proposed deletion. Questionable assertions of notability at best. No references whatsoever. I am nominating it as proxy for Kjnelan. ((Nihiltres|talk|edits)) 03:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments were removed by User:Nja247 due to legal threats by User_talk:98.235.25.88. Kjnelan (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 22:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yeshiva World News[edit]
Advert page for a site with no notability. Triplestop x3 21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Keep[edit]
The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Craig Calver[edit]
Youth team player who has never played at a fully-professional level yet, thus failing WP:ATH. Also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 21:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bratunac massacre[edit]
WP is not a soapbox. There are no sources available on google.books, the few websites I could google were either Serb nationalist sites or just referred to the article at B92, a Serb web page. The article (only reference provided) just repeats a Serb politician's statement. In sum: totally falls short of WP:V and there's no likelihood that verifiability will be achieved. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Back in May 1992, Serbs massacred 80 Bosniaks in Glogova. If we are going to talk about "Bratunac Massacre" then we may as well talk about real massacres, those deliberately perpetrated by Serb forces against Bosniaks in Bratunac. More than 1000 Bosniaks were killed in Bratunac in 1992. Bratunac was a Muslim town which was ethnically cleansed froom Bosniaks by Serb Army. Serbs committed horrendous crimes against Bosniaks in Bratunac and surrounding Bosnian Muslim villages. You quoted source for your claim to be "Milivoje Ivanisevic" - Serbian proapgandist and Srebrenica genocide denier. He has no credibility, authority, or respect to be taken seriously for anything. He is one-sided pro-Serbian extremist who repeatedly denied Serb crimes against Bosniaks in Podrinje. Serbs used to re-write history with lies about 700,000 dead Serbs in Jasenovac (when in fact only 50,000 died as per the US Holocaust Museum data). Now you want to re-write the history of Bratunac, former Muslim town from which you expelled Muslims? It's not going to work. The International Tribunal at the Hague has already spoken. The facts: Serbs are overhelmingly responsible for war crimes in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Court has spoken. Do whatever you want to do, but you will never be able to change these facts. Bosniak (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Comment[reply]
Here is a source by AFP: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iwY6CmRCt-iyUFVkY5tSO0voidUg The Bratunac massacre happened, despite the efforts of some groups to keep that from the world --A.Molnar (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revise. I went to the article expecting to find more information about the Bratunac massacre described in Hasan Nuhanovic's "Under the UN Flag", his narrative of events leading up to and including the Srebrenica genocide. Setting the scene and indicating why the Dutchbat III's training should have prepared them for the possibility of a genocidal onslaught against Srebrenica is a description of events preceding July 1992, at the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5:
The article as it stands appears to lack any account of its subject. Opbeith (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cinema C, you have identified a basic problem. I'm not aware of the existence of an honest account of the specific sufferings of innocent civilian Serbs in the Bosnian war on Wikipedia. Serbian campaigners for truth and justice appear to have too much on their hands simply trying to get their compatriots to acknowledge what happened, so the propagandists tend to dominate the Wikipedia history of Serbia's and the Serbs' involvement in the Bosnian war. That seems to be part of the reason for the apparently imbalanced listing of massacres in the Bosnian war that you remarked on. The other is of course that the imbalance is rooted in the grim reality. It's not a question of just the deaths of Serbs and Croats going unmarked. There are scores of notable massacres of Bosniaks/Bosnian Muslims that have no article at Wikipedia recording them, like the massacre at Zaklopaca (near Vlasenica) on 16 May 1992, to take one example of many. Opbeith (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Dragan Glavasic[edit]
Doesn't show notability. Google search shows nothing. If this article turns out to be a keep, it needs major improvement. TheWeakWilled 20:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Camden College of English[edit]
This looks like fairly blatant spamvertorial to me, and I can't see any way this college differs from any of the thousands of other TEFL colleges in every major English-speaking city. Given that it's been live for four years now and edited by multiple editors - none of whom appear to have seen any problem with it - I'll give it benefit of the doubt and bring it over for discussion, but I'm really not seeing it in this case. – iridescent 20:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. I've followed the links and certainly know much more about the world of wikipedia than I did before. Don't want to have an argument with anyone and will bow to your judgement and accept any advice. Stuart Rubenstein LondonEnglish (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 20:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Virus Nine[edit]
Non-notable band. ninety:one 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Joshua burlin[edit]
Actor who does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Possibly a hoax. IMDB link is to a page for "Josh Bowlin", who only has 1 credit listed. Can't find anything relevant on google, searching for both names with the TV show titles mentioned. BelovedFreak 19:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Levis Almighty[edit]
Comic book series - fails to meet notability guidelines. Is unverifiable as far as I can tell from google, google news & google books. Certainly appears to be no non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. BelovedFreak 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] NXg[edit]
A merger to The Hindu was proposed but I decided not to do it when I was merging other supplements. Reasons: 1 - No substantive content worth merging (main article includes one line on what this is), 2 - Content is out dated, the Hindu changed this from a supplement to an online mag, 3 - This will result in a 'Redirect - other uses' hat note on the article, unwanted in The Hindu. I've also discussed this with User:Thryduulf who proposed the merger. Xe agrees that AfD is a better option. Delete -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 19:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Phantom Pain[edit]
What makes this band notable? Cannibaloki 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. WP:NAC. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator, which is essentially WP:WHOCARES. Tim Song (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ihm guwahati[edit]AfDs for this article:
NOt a subject of much interest to general public BwB (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Beatles' wives[edit]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Burnt Ash (band)[edit]
Nothing to indicate notability. Allmusic search shows no results. TheWeakWilled 17:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete have produced a demo, as yet nothing more. Their album has not been released (as yet). Boleyn2 (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to List of schools in Leicestershire#Primary Schools. Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School, Loughborough[edit]AfDs for this article:
Non-notable Primary school. Importance has not been asserted within the article. Hitro talk 17:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the person who wrote this article. This is a notable school in loughborough and should not be deleted i'm okay with it being put under another heading with other primary schools in leicstershire though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-xoxo (talk • contribs) 08:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Garry Lewis[edit]
Marginal assertion of notability: apparently a working artist, but no major exhibitions, etc. How many 3D animators are there in the industry, anyhow? Certainly they are not all encyclopedic, and nothing about Mr. Lewis' career seems exceptionally noteworthy. Lithoderm 16:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with points made above - nothing to prove notability and no references. Google brought up an NFL player, an aviation photographer and a real estate company, but it was about three pages in before it mentioned the artist, and that just confirmed that he had co-written a book published by a niche publisher. Boleyn2 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Reinaldo Quintero[edit]
No assertion of notability; all references are from blogs and deviant art journals. No noteworthy exhibits or works mentioned. Lithoderm 16:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revamped the whole article. I highly suggest reconsideration of the AfD before deletion. Victor "waran4" N. Bakke (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hawk & Fisher[edit]AfDs for this article:
I am actually the creator of this page from over 2 years ago. Looking at it now, I'm fairly certain it fails WP:N. There are reliable sources on the books but not the characters themselves. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to South Park. Spartaz Humbug! 20:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] South Park title sequence[edit]
Lacks third-party citations (debatable as this may not be possible) Does not meet standards for Notability on its own as an article for a 30 second title sequence. This AfD serves to initiate debate for the deletion of an article as opposed to a Proposed Deletion which does not give ample time to come to consensus on a deletion or keep of an article nor does it give time to come up with alternatives to the deletion of an article which may include merging it into a different article. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 16:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy keep. No reason was ever supplied for the nomination. If anyone wants this article deleted, they should feel free to start over with a proper nomination including a reason. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kris Stewart (director and producer)[edit]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Stewart (director and producer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BNR4EVER (talk • contribs)
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] New York Yankees Conspiracy Theories[edit]
Original research/personal essay/speculation, see WP:NOR. Author removed prod notice without comment. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] John Kammerer[edit]
Looks like an elaborate hoax. I checked several of the claims on this page (such as Academy Award) and could not find any confirmation. Austrian (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. I am not insensitive to the cogent arguments given both in support of keeping this article and in support of merging its contents elsewhere. It is true that WP:ONEEVENT is mis-applied at times, but that doesn't mean this is such a case. It is also true that the information could be kept elsewhere. However, I find the arguments for deletion more convincing when looked at in context of the article itself and the subject himself. Even after a good bit of discussion (I wouldn't call it lengthy, but it's certainly more than trivial), the most the article can come up with is "it has been reported" and "previously unknown" and "only a hint" - phrases which either are or come perilously close to WP:WEASEL words. I'm not using WP:WEASEL to support deletion, but the normal response to it is to fix it - the problem is that when you pull out all of that, what you get is an article about an alias of a Lebanese man who died while building a bomb - and that's not the stuff of which encyclopedic articles are made. That he may have been intending to kill a notable person associated with a notable scandal - an assertion which does not appear to be well-supported in reliable sources - does not make him notable. This is a recurring theme in the discussion below, as evidenced by comments (on both sides of the debate) citing WP:V, "little hard information", "trivial coverage", etc. Frank | talk 16:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh[edit]
This article would normally be a clear candidate for deletion under WP:ONEEVENT. However, per WP:PRESERVE I propose that it is renamed February 2009 Salman Rushdie assassination attempt and the text reworked in line with this new title. SP-KP (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Against The Grain Gourmet[edit]
fails WP:COMPANY. References are mostly to directory sites or own website. Google hits are mainly on blogs, web forums and directory sites. noq (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I don't really understand which references are "directory sites." The references are all from reputable sources, i.e. Vermont Business Magazine and Natural Living Magazine. There are only two refeferences to the Against The Grain website, and those are because they are direct quotes from the founders of the company. The reason that the Google hits are mainly on blogs and forums is that the gluten-free community exists largely online, and since the popularity of Against The Grain Gourmet is growing rapidly, there is a lot of talk about it. Please explain your reasoning to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debaser12 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was SNOW delete Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ikram's unlimited calender[edit]AfDs for this article:
|
Australian Periodontal Disease Movement[edit]
The result was Speedy Delete -- Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hoax. No source is given, and Google finds nothing about the organisation or its head but WP and mirrors. The only other contribution of the author Britishprince (talk · contribs) is Muhannad Al-Asnaani, also at AfD as a hoax, about the supposed former head of this organisation. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nookies[edit]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Meistriliiga 2009 Team of the Week[edit]
Article does not have any kind of sources attached, thus failing WP:RS and WP:V. Subject not notable enough to warrant stand-alone article, thus failing WP:N. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Highwater (film)[edit]
Unnotable film. Fails WP:NF. Prodded by one editor with note of "no evidence of notability - not even released" - prod removed by article creator without note. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 2006 North Ossetia pipeline explosions[edit]
For three and a half years this article was placed at 2006 North Ossetia sabotages, which is of course POV. As it stands now the article is a prime example of WP:NOTNEWS, in that aside from the routine reporting of news reports on 22 and 23 January 2006, there is no evidence of long-lasting notability for this very minor incident, in that aside from the explosion, Saakaskhvili claiming it was sabotage, Russia telling Saakashvili to stop being a hysterical drama queen, and Russia restoring gas supplies to Georgia 24 hours after the explosion, there is no other coverage, meaning this article also suffers from a huge lack of notability in an encyclopaedic context. Russavia Dialogue 09:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Cocktail hat[edit]
Fails WP:N big time. With only two references and a barely coherent text, this is not a necessary article. NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Muhannad Al-Asnaani[edit]The result was deleted per the initial G7 blanking (& the wonderful feedback below :) Skier Dude (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)))[reply]
This appears to be a hoax, based partly on Fred Hollows Grahame (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jesus Angulo[edit]
Not notable. Research and a book (which based on the library listing is 37 pages long) with no ISBN issued to it does not satisfy WP:PROF. I have found one newspaper reference (Miami Herald (Miami, FL) April 20, 2006) but nothing in the article appears to establish notability and the article is not about Angulo.—Ash (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Common Man Calendar[edit]
Apparent Internet meme with no notability. Google shows only local blogs, myspace, and WP mirrors [59].Nothing in Google news. Previously deprodded, so brought here. DGG (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Off The Wall (mangas)[edit]
no assertion of notability whatsoever WuhWuzDat 04:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 20:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Toronto Writers' Centre[edit]AfDs for this article:
Non-notable company. The few reasonable mentions on google news are about launching the Writers' Centre; nothing in these articles would establish notability. Consequently it is unlikely that notability can or will be established in the future. Note that the article has been tagged for re-write for 3 years with no progress. Ash (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. recreation permitted if the GNG are subsequently met Spartaz Humbug! 20:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Emily Grace Reaves[edit]
Non-notable child actress. Despite the lack of claims of notability, my db tag was removed. Note that Emily Grace Reeves was speedy deleted. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Big Wednesday Lifestyle[edit]
Neologism with absolutely no supporting evidence that this has entered the New Zealand phrasebook. Googling gives a single blog comment, and I've certainly never heard it uttered. While it might eventually become notable, until it is reported as such in reliable sources, there is no place for it on Wikipedia dramatic (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Finally Famous: Born a Thug Die a Thug[edit]AfDs for this article:
Deleted twice, still fails wp:music which states that "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources". The 1 ref is not a RS. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-02t12:30z 12:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Withdrawn. The creator took care of the issues. Joe Chill (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Liberty County Airport[edit]
Fails WP:Disambiguation because it has two articles (one is a red link) and because the name of the articles distinguishes itself from the generic term. Joe Chill (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ryan Torda[edit]
Non-notable; a Google search yields no reliable sources about this guy in the first thirty results. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Semen. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Medical uses for human semen[edit]
inherently unverifiable original research, since semen has never been used medically. Also appears to be a POV fork of information removed from the Semen article by consensus. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. This is clearly expandable, although it may be worth revisiting in the future. I was considering a soft redirect in the meantime but I think it'd be more likely to be improved if left in its current state. Tagged for expansion. Black Kite 22:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Performance report[edit]
Completing nom for IP per request: IP'S reason was: The page is patently a dicdef, and clearly has no potential for expansion. There is one other article linking to it, and even that is not referring to the subject of said "article". ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Aerolineas[edit]
No assertion of notability. Not even sure what this article is about. However it might be notable so AfD instead of speedy. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Consensus strongly suggests that this individual is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wayne Stokeling[edit]
Article was created as part of a "pay for article" business. See here for a rip-off report filed by the unhappy client. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ronald Wiedermeier[edit]
no indication of why this character needs an article if this character was a guest star, there is no need for this article. Pedro thy master (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Giles Alderson[edit]
Only minor appears in a number of shows. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ENT. Otterathome (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable bit-parter, no evidence of notability. magnius (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. There are really too few comments to make an informed judgment, but relisting for a fourth time would be impractical; thus, no prejudice towards a speedy renomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] LUPICIA[edit]
Prod removed by author. Non-notable tea company, article sourced to press releases. Reads like an ad. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fasihi[edit]
Article about a non-notable company. Article was apparently mainly written by the company itself. The article topic is also unclear, beside talking about the company it also lists a infobox for a software product which has apparently the same name. Also the article is categorized as german ISP which is wrong. Kju (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Johnnyboyxo[edit]
None of the sources currently on the article pass WP:RS, and the article was previously deleted for what I assume to be similar reasons; fails WP:BIO, with no reliable sources to be seen. (Alt. search: 1) Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 10:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] --DrewMaverick (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I think that www.gawker.com is a reliable source it is a heavily visited website and is a reliable gossip website on scale of Perez Hilton.. speaking of perez hilton, he also posted about Johnny http://perezhilton.com/2008-06-06-avril-lavigne-is-blogging-again. He is a Youtube celebrity and is the number 82 most subscribed Guru on the whole YouTube website, with video views over 31 million. Think about that and then say he's not qualified for the article.[reply] Also, he has 5 singles out on itunes and amazon, most of which have charted on various iTunes charts including the electronic chart. I don't know what else to tell you.. he has over 80,000 myspace friends... 10,000,000 music plays on myspace... I completely disagree with your decision to nominate this for deletion.
|
The result was CSD-G7 on August 11. NAC. Why didn't anyone close this two days ago? Joe Chill (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Carve Your Destiny[edit]
Delete per WP:SOAP, along with the article on filmmaker/entrepreneur Anubhav Srivastava, which appear to be using Wikipedia as a promo tool for the filmmaker and his project. I can find no reliable third-party sources establishing notability. (It is possible there has been sock-puppetry among three accounts in creating these articles.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) The article on the project only adds value to Wikipedia as this project involves several respected personalities from India, many of them having belonging to reputed organizations or having notable international achievements. 2) This article DOES NOT suggest the viewer to watch the movie. The background of the article has been written from a neutral point of view. All of the achievements of the interviewees have been backed by REFERENCES. There is no promotion. 3) According to Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. The subject of this article HAS received attention in a third party publication. Kindly see the point below. 4) Yourstory.in is a reliable third party source started by a journalist involved with a mainstream Indian channel "CNBC Awaaz." Kindly check this link to verify her affliation with CNBC (http://www.coolavenues.com/bschools/090401/siom-e-cell-1.php) While, the article was written in first person, it was only at the request of the Website itself. This does not mean the coverage was not "third party" as the publication itself has absolutely no affiliation to the subject. The article was scrutinized and edited by editors on the website before it was put on the main page. The fact the article was covered on the page of of a third party publication for several days does establish notability for the resource. Kindly visit http://yourstory.in if you have any doubts regarding it being a third party source. The article was written by the person but it WAS NOT SELF PUBLISHED and was independently verified by the publication before being put up. 5) I am aware that "The interview with Katerina Brodska" cannot be treated as a "reliable" third party source. Although it is not self published, still according to wikipedia "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles ABOUT THEMSELVES, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources." 6) Wikipedia policy also states that future films for which principal photography have already commenced can be included if the production itself is at least somewhat notable. The notability of the production can be asserted to some extent through its coverage in a third party publication. I would like to state once again that if the article does seem promotional, kindly give enough time to make relevant edits to make it more encyclopedic. Thank You. Destinedfortop (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) The subject has been covered in AT LEAST one reliable, third party publication with no affiliation to the subject. 2) The work in itself is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", even if it is not widely known yet. 3) The authenticity of the subject HAS been verified through the stills from the interviews and the videos added in the external links section. Destinedfortop (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Destinedfortop (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, none of the interviewees have received any payments to appear in this film. Most of the interviewees have independent achievements in diverse fields and none of them have a vested monetary interest in this film. They interviews are of value to the audience and educational in nature. Kindly check out this video on Youtube featuring three of the interviewees http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHd_fyFOtWc and decide for yourself :) Destinedfortop (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through this subject matter in detail, including the website, the pictures with the personalities, excerpts of their interviews and the article on Your Story. I feel that while this subject has not been covered in mainstream media yet, the very concept and the progress made until now may make it notable to the mainstream media in the near future. The reason is that the production itself has potential for notability due to the concept of interviewing “real achievers” instead of self help gurus. Also, a 23 year old making it independently makes it possess potential for notability in the near future as well. I don’t think the article deserves a deletion, maybe a revision of the background to make it more neutral. The Anubhav Srivastava page can be merged into the Carve Your Destiny page. Editors should be given time to add more verified references to the subject as they appear in the mainstream media. A references tag about requirement for verified third party resources can be added in the meanwhile. If after a couple of months or so, no references from the main stream media have been added, the article can be deleted under the non notability criteria. Right now, I think the article should be given a chance. Remrie (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC) — Remrie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I am not saying any of these opinions from new accounts should hold a lot of weightage but I do expect editors to desist from making accusations. Let's keep this debate limited to facts. If all that would come out of engaging in this debate are these kinds of things, I personally request any of the administrators to kindly delete this page. Destinedfortop (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been involved in the creation of the other page although it was made by a person known to me. Admins, kindly delete both the pages as the consensus seems to imply that the pages are not suited for Wikipedia as of now. Destinedfortop (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Clearly no consensus to delete here - although you can still discuss for rename the article if necessary on the talk page (or any merging) JForget 21:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of minor characters on My Name Is Earl[edit]
We have a list of characters in My Name Is Earl. The list there is, in some cases more organised than this one. Main characters don't have their own article because there was much effort to keep the information organised. It doesn't make sense to have a separate article for minor characters giving them undie weight (and which is also unreferenced). Magioladitis (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete as G7. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anubhav Srivastava[edit]
Delete per WP:SOAP, along with the article on Carve Your Destiny, which appear to be using Wikipedia as a promo tool for the filmmaker and his project. I can find no reliable third-party sources establishing notability. (It is possible there has been sock-puppetry among three accounts in creating these articles.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) The person in question has independently created this project only adds value to Wikipedia as this project involves several respected personalities from India, many of them having belonging to reputed organizations or having notable international achievements. 2) The article has been written from a neutral point of view. Only the facts have been stated. The bio is not biased towards the subject. 3) According to Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. The subject of this article HAS received attention in a third party publication. Kindly see the point below. 4)The first reference from Yourstory.in is a reliable third party source started by a journalist involved with a mainstream Indian channel "CNBC Awaaz." Kindly check this link to verify her affliation with CNBC (http://www.coolavenues.com/bschools/090401/siom-e-cell-1.php) While, the article was written in first person, it was only at the request of the Website itself. This does not mean the coverage was not "third party" as the publication itself has absolutely no affiliation to the subject. The article was scrutinized and edited by editors on the website before it was put on the main page. The fact the article was covered on the page of of a third party publication for several days does establish notability for the resource. Kindly visit http://yourstory.in if you have any doubts regarding it being a third party source. The article was written by the person but it WAS NOT SELF PUBLISHED and was independently verified by the publication before being put up. 5) The second reference I am aware that "The interview with Katerina Brodska" cannot be treated as a "reliable" third party source. Although it is not self published, still according to wikipedia "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information ABOUT THEMSELVES, especially in articles ABOUT THEMSELVES, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources." 6) The third reference has been used for verification of the appearances of the interviewees. It is indirectly used a reference for the work the subject of this article has done. What other form of reference can be used for VERIFICATION of appearances of interviewees apart from stills from all the interviews conducted? 7) The rest of the references were never intended to be references for the subject itself but references for the statement "with achievements in diverse fields." They were indirect references for the notability of the individuals involved in the work he has done. Finally, I would like to state that this article should stay based on the following. - The work done by the subject and the subject itself has been covered in AT LEAST one reliable independent third party publication. The authenticity of the work is evident through the third reference in the article. Destinedfortop (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remrie (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC) — Remrie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Admins, I am requesting you to kindly delete this page and the one on Carve Your Destiny as it does not seem to be suited to Wikipedia for now. Kindly ignore my earlier arguments. Destinedfortop (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, although it is a person known to me personally. If you need him to make a request through that account, I will ask him to do so Destinedfortop (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not asked anyone to create an article on me, and nor have I "enlisted" anyone for help. Please tell me any instance where any of my so called friends have supported me in this discussion. The only instance is that of a person I do not even know. Let me state once again, I HAVE NOT asked anyone else to create articles for myself. If they have done so on their own, please dictate that to them by messaging them, not me. Also please be assured that articles will not be created again anytime soon , I will make it clear to any of those I know personally to not do so. You do not have to tell me that. If I am requesting a deletion myself, it kind of makes it obvious doesn't it? Thanks Destinedfortop (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I would be personally placing tags for speedy deletion on Carve Your Destiny and this page. Administrators, be assured that the pages will not be recreated. Kindly delete both Carve Your Destiny and Anubhav Srivastava. I am just tired of debating over the same thing since the past couple of days and feel it is best that the articles be taken off Wikipedia. Thanks Destinedfortop (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] On a second note, it is better that the person who created this article place that notice himself. That should be up too in a few hours. Thanks Destinedfortop (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Narciso Martinez (boxer)[edit]
Fails WP:BIO - lacks significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Google searching was difficult owing to existence of other notable people with the same name. PROD declined by author, who has a username identical to that of the subject. RayTalk 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sharebee[edit]
Doesn't assert notability, low Alexa rank. —Sean Whitton / 14:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Having spent quite some time trying to pull a consensus one way or another out of this discussion, I've had no choice but to conclude there isn't one. A "delete" argument that merely dismisses the article as listcruft without further elaboration is hard to give a great deal of weight to; and while the arguments to keep are not wholly convincing they do do a reasonable job of refuting a good proportion of the nomination statement. Finally, the revised statement by the nominator suggesting a merge seems prima facie reasonable to me; but again consensus to do so has not developed here. Overall, I think the solution here is to trim this list and see if it wouldn't be better incorporated into one of the other articles that have been mentioned here - if it is not resolved to general satisfaction, I would suggest this is renominated here in the intermediate future. ~ mazca talk 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of environmental organisations topics[edit]
A clunky topic that does not need an article. It is essentially a repeat of List of environmental issues and the rest of the collection at Lists of environmental topics. It does not have any rational boundary and includes a wide range of topics some of which are totally irrelevant (Office Maintenance??). If the irrelevant links were removed and more specific links used it would turn out to be the same as List of environmental issues and List of conservation issues. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies to Anarchangel:
To your last, indeed it could, and then it would. But if 'there can be only one', why not the more complete one? And if this had occurred to you previously, or if you were even undertaking such an enterprise as of 11 Aug, perhaps the AfD rationale would have been more clearcut, shall we say.
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] International Film College[edit]
fails WP:ORG, a non notable private college, nothing in gnews [66], and mainly directory listings in google [67]. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] ManyDesigns Portofino[edit]
Non notable software. Prod deleted with no explanation Malcolma (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. If its notable then we need sources Spartaz Humbug! 20:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Crowdspring[edit]
Notability isn't asserted in the article and I don't believe the website is at all notable (Google shows up little beyond its own website and accounts on social networking/photo sites). —Sean Whitton / 14:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. There is some support for a merge to Snuff film which can appropriately be discussed on the talk page; but the general consensus is to keep this article. ~ mazca talk 09:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Beheading video[edit]AfDs for this article:
Not really a notable subject. I suggest either delete or merge with Snuff Film KMFDM FAN (talk!) 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. No sources could be found to salvage this article, which has no evidence of notability and makes limited sense. ~ mazca talk 10:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Digital Architecture[edit]
Unsourced, orphaned, vague, and self-contradictory. (Does "digital architecture" have anything to do with buildings? The article says no, but the image says yes.) No signs of improvement in nearly two years it's been on my watchlist, and both of the substantial contributors have not edited since, so I doubt there'll ever be any. Some quick Googling was unsuccessful in turning up any evidence that the phrase is commonly used in this sense. Zetawoof(ζ) 18:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. The article, while presently unsourced and stubby, nonetheless appears sourceable - consensus here is that the article can reasonably be improved to a good encyclopedic standard with some work. ~ mazca talk 10:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Double-duty dollar[edit]
This article covers a non-notable phrase with very little possible encyclopaedic development. Neelix (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The GoldTones[edit]
This article fails Wikipedia's notability criteria for music. Neelix (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of Microfinance Institutions in Nepal[edit]
Collection of companies that have no assertions of notability themselves, and the topic itself has questionable notability. Would a list of Microfinance Institutions in Nepal be a notable specialisation of information? SGGH ping! 16:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kunwar Shekhar Vijendra[edit]
PRODded, contested since it was verifiable that he was the pro-chancellor of a University and therefore it's not a non-controversial deletion. A Vice-chancellor is the one that qualifies per WP:Academic, a Pro-chancellor is a nominee of the funding organization, also this particular educational institution isn't a research university. Found this in RS where he's briefly quoted and the fact established that he's Vice Chairman of NICE Society, and this - a researcher thanks him for his encouragement. Other than that, there's mention of him being on the board of the Uttar Pradesh State Body Builders Association on their webpage, and some literature on the University site (both primary sources, trivial mentions - nothing beyond his title). At present there's no RS content to write a stub. Delete -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 17:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Copyvio. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Athens Human Rights Festival[edit]
Festival, but notability not asserted. Oscarthecat (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep:It is notable. Definitely. Comment": Those reasons don't justify making your keep weak.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 20:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] IKVM.NET[edit]
All that I can find is download sites and tutorials. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|