The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable scientist. Had a few published works but fails WP:PROF in my opinion. Article is written like an obituary. Drdisque (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
:: i don't debate with exclusionists. Delete it!!! --Melly42 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 14:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just declined an A7 speedy on this article about an unnofficial supporter's group for the US soccer team however I am really not convinced that it meets WP:ORG so am bringing it here for the community to decide. The cites in the article are either primary or from blogs & I have struggled to find any WP:RS to back them up. To place the club in context it appears that there are several supporters clubs for the team, the most prominent being Sam's Army & even that is of questionable note. Nancy talk 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some other references added, one of which is from ESPN.com. I feel that this article should definitely not be deleted. There have been mentions of American Outlaws in many credible 3rd party sources and even during live tv broadcasts of soccer games (not sure how I would go about citing that). Franharrington (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The layout of the page and the sourcing has been improved. Is this page still a candidate for deletion? Garrett3000 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see any good reason for this to still be a candidate for deletion. Franharrington (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No actual arguments made to keep the article by the WP:SPA accounts that voted here (and I do mean "voted"). Jayjg (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person (he did not invent Six Sigma, although the article makes it sound like it). I can find only a handful of stub business-profile type references. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC). Update: also note that the "anonymous" IP that has continued working on Joshua Mutize has both removed the AfD template from it, and blanked this page.[reply]
The result was speedily deleted. TNXMan 00:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article makes this sound notable, the only Google hit (now) for "Hill view incident" is this article. So the monicker is made up. And checking around, I can't find any indication that this ever happened, let alone that it is notable (e.g., "hill view" murders at Google News, "hill view" reading CCTV at Google). Glenfarclas (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a medical condition that a single doctor claims to have discovered, and formulated a treatment for. I originally speedily deleted the article as advertising, because it was full of language promoting this doctor's practice and his treatment for the condition. As recreated, the article is less spammy, but now it seems to (1) desribe original research, in violation of WP:NOR, and (2) lack any reliable independent sources, in violation of WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. already deleted by User:NuclearWarfare JForget 15:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely hoax. I can find no source that even attests that this institution exists. The article states that it was closed in 2007 after a lawsuit by a former Pennsylvania state senator. If that were true, then it would have been national news. But, there's not a single reference anywhere about anything about this school. See also Christopher Hughes (politician), which is a related hoax by the author. Blargh29 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely hoax. The subject never existed. Senator Christopher Hughes was supposed to have been elected to the Pennsylvania State Senate in 2002, but the official election results show no such individual. Senator Hughes was supposed to have sponsored Senate Bill, Act 2005-174 to ban certain religious training colleges; but the real Senate Bill 174 in 2005 was an amendment to the Vehicle Code by Senator Jake Corman. Senator Christopher Hughes was supposed to have filed a suit in Pennsylvania Superior Court #PA-1472-A-07-10-05, but a docket search at Superior Court website reveals no such thing. Gentlemen, we have a well-written hoax on our hands. Blargh29 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, non admin closure. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable I20984353 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn as a duplicate deletion discussion by nominator. (Non-admin closure) Shirik (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable 10-minute short film. I can't find any remotely verifiable info on this; does not meet WP:MOVIE. See also the related AfD discussions for the director and the production company. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an open deletion discussion for this film. However the article never got tagged with the template, so I opened this in error. Sorry-- Glenfarclas (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With but minor roles in a few (albeit "notable") films and a role of uncertain scope on "One Life to Live", the subject fails to meet the notability requirement set forth at Wikipedia:Bio#Entertainers. NB - the page was created by the subject's personal manager and many, if not most, of Google hits relating to the subject can be traced back to PR efforts rather than reliable 3d party coverage. JohnInDC (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the average reasonable person can look at Nicoye Banks' credits and judge for his/herself. If one performs a Google search for "Nicoye Banks" (s)he would find this result: http://www.google.com/search?q=nicoye+banks&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Contrary to the above stated assertion, by "Glenfarclas," that "most of the information [found] is obvious pr puff," the Google search reflects a long list (35 + pages) of third-party sites that acknowledge Nicoye Banks credits., including IMDB, and other blogs, internet magazines, etc. where interviews and celebrity photos can be found. There can be no question that Nicoye Banks has had, and continues to have, "significant," roles in movies and stage performances. Two more feature films are scheduled for release in March of 2010. Green Zone - (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1072565/news) with Matt Damon. Notice the IMDB link clearly states that "The film stars Matt Damon, Jason Isaacs, Greg Kinnear, Amy Ryan, Antoni Corone and Nicoye Banks. . . . " AND 2. Brooklyn's Finest where Nicoye Banks plays a supporting role.
I could go on, but it doesn't seem necessary. However, what would help anyone, including myself, in his/her judgment of this particular submission would be an actual definition for the words "significant" and "notable." - Taken from the following " Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
The word "multiple" seems clear as the word is generally understood to mean more than 1.
Please Note: I am the management representative for Nicoye Banks. Unlike many editors on Wikipedia, I do not hide the fact that I may be affiliated in some way with the person/thing being mentioned, rather, I unabashedly disclose my affiliation, because any information I provide is factual and credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymbala (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - - - I welcome and appreciate the challenges to Nicoye Banks' qualifications for Wikipedia inclusion, however, overall, this is becoming laughable. There is clearly more information to support the fact that Nicoye Banks meets the stated requirements for Entertainers to have a Wikipedia article than the scant proposed assertions otherwise. Other individuals, and I, are still waiting for the definitions of the words "significant" and "notable." I think it's easy to see the 3rd party sites that acknowledge Nicoye Banks' credits. Notice the 2 individuals so vehemently opposed to the article on Nicoye Banks can not challenge the validity or existence of 35+ pages of results for the Google search "Nicoye Banks." (let me assure you that NO ONE has 35+ pages worth of Google search results if that person is not doing "notable" things on "multiple" occasions). "JohnInDc" and "Glenfarclas" would rather attempt to discredit the 3rd party sources. . . .35+ pages worth. . . . by stating that "they seem to derive from the same source (namely Blanks' publicists)." While language for a few articles (less than 1 page worth) may have originated with Nicoye Banks' publicists (what "noteworthy" actor doesn't have a publicist? which further underscores my point), I feel confident stating that upwards of 95% of those sites' information is provided by 3rd party sources not affiliated with Nicoye Banks. (i.e. film studios, producers, production company/studio public relations, individual investigation).
"JohnInDc'" and "Glenfarclas'" campaign to delete the article on Nicoye Banks could be better appreciated if we knew these individuals' role and/or connection with the Wikipedia site. Furthermore, it would help if we understood "JohnInDc'" and "Glenfarclas'" individual and/or collective definition of the words "significant" and "notable." And finally, these individuals' comments could have more credibility if either one could give more personal knowledge to back up their claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymbala (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC) --Raymbala (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. (Non-admin closure, Deleted by User:SchuminWeb.) Shirik (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP Highest Heights (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no sources can be found for this individual, with the exception of their self-published promotional website. SnottyWong talk 18:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I cannot find significant coverage, and Google news doesn't make any mention of it. Shirik (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to violate; WP:NSONGS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG, WP:RS. WossOccurring (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A complete non-product. Speculative connection to actual game. No actual game publisher has said, "Hey, this is an actual thing we're making." --EEMIV (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No present and individual notability. Being the son of a notable person is not sufficient. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable private school. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Prod removed with note of "Contest WP:PROD - deletion of high school articles is controversial, so shouldn't be done without discussion." Per Wikipedia policy nothing is "inherently notable" nor is anything notable without actual significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources which this school does not have. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable private school. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Prod removed with note of "deprodding because it purports to go through 12th grade, and all high schools are generally deemed notable." however per Wikipedia policy nothing is "inherently notable" nor is anything notable without actual significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources which this school does not have. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unsourced article on a young academic with no evidence of notability per WP:BIO or WP:PROF freshacconci talktalk 17:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Yorkshire Terrier. Let's keep it civil, guys. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non-notable breed, a long haired variant of the Yorkshire Terrier. The article is completey un-encyclopaedic in tone, full of fan cruft and weasel words and appears to be promotional of the Biewer Terrier Club of America, Inc. Two "references" have been provided, one is a passing mention in an apparently self published German book "Die Pflege ihres Hundes: Band 2 Haaranlagen und Pflegebeispiele" which says that the breed is not recognised by official bodies. The other reference is is to the Biewer Terrier Club of America, Inc website and doesn't seem to support the material in the article. I can find no RS to support the notability of this breed. I prodded it and the nomination was supported by two other editors and opposed by one other who removed the tag, citing the references mentioned above. I propose deletion and merging of any useful content to the Yorkshire Terrier article. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can visit this web site and click on news. This is the association that governs the IABCA here in America. http://www.uci-ev.de/english_site/index_en.htm --Zarina1 (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Una Smith (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources establish notability. I suggest we delete and/or redirect to Bombshell (disambiguation). --Explodicle (T/C) 15:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Jimfbleak. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steaming pile of WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a "how to" site. WuhWuzDat 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable person, speedy removed by sock of page author WuhWuzDat 15:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable company, speedy removed by sock of page author WuhWuzDat 15:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When information from user 71.142.81.11 were quoted above, significant details were omitted. Below are the complete comments by that user:
“Critical reviews by wordsmiths author Dr. Ross Eckler, magazine editor Ted Clarke, and members of the National Puzzlers' League:
http://www.amazon.com/Words-Play-Quips-Quirks-Oddities/product-reviews/0806997915
Also see Reference No. 1 of the Wikipedia article from The Palindromist magazine:
http://www.realchange.org/pal/authors.htm
71.142.81.11 (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks: that review quote from Word Ways looks good, so I'll post it to the AFD discussion, and let's see what the rest of the editors think. MuffledThud (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That former editor of Word Ways was Ross Eckler, author of Making the Alphabet Dance. Michaelsen contributed to that major book, and to the book The National Puzzlers' League: The First 115 Years. Another review on that Amazon.com site was by Ted Clarke, editor of Wordsworth magazine in England. For the sake of fairness, please mention the names of those reviewers. Why did you bring up the comments by an anonymous reviewer? You are not giving this a fair shake.
71.142.81.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC). The quoted reviews were posted to the Amazon customer review page by an anonymous customer: "A Customer". Please go ahead and add more detail about the other reviewers at the AFD discussion, if you think they're significant. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) “
comment added by Pierre Abelarde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.98.95 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note User:Pierre Abelarde has been blocked 2 days for sock puppetry via vote-stacking with the IP in the above deletion discussion. MuZemike 21:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @757 · 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
neither country has a resident ambassador. and total trade is less than 2 million EUROs between these 2 countries (surely the richest individual Sri Lankans and Estonians invest much more). the country comparison in the article adds no real value when these figures can be obtained from the country's own article of the CIA World Factbook. a complete lack of coverage of any real bilateral relations [6]. 2 of the 3 sources listed in the article are embassy websites. there has been no state visits either. statements such as "Since Estonia’s induction into the European Union in 2004 it has had a positive affect on bilateral relations with Sri Lanka, since the EU is one of Sri Lanka’s biggest donors and trade partners" seem pure synthesis given that trade has actually decreased from pre 2004 levels. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, but you still haven't provided evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon Richard, what does third party mean? you're not fooling us. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @759 · 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
neither country has a resident ambassador and the country comparison in the article adds no real value when these figures can be obtained from the country's own article of the CIA World Factbook. most of the third party coverage is multilateral [9]. the level of relations is very minor, the level of bilateral trade is less than USD10M [10], keep in mind some individuals easily spend more than that in 1 country. LibStar (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation I have seen in almost every bilateral combination of any 2 countries that do trade even at the very small levels of these 2 countries. it is hardly something that adds greatly to proving notable bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, etc. This is not encyclopedic content. Potentially can be transwikied, but probably not worth the effort given the amount of content. Shirik (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Keep but rename and rework to be about the fable seems to be the emerging consensus. Fences&Windows 15:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, this is not encyclopedic content. Potentially transwikiable, but I am not sure that is worth it. Shirik (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Notable and WP:BLP since it until yesterday it was totally unsourced, until two sources were added for her alleged religious affiliation. An example of the problems with this article is the opening sentence: "Junko Sakurada (桜田 淳子, Sakurada Junko, born April 14, 1958) is a former singer and actress from the city of Akita, Akita Prefecture, Japan." None of these facts are sourced, including the rather remarkable assertion that she is a "former" singer. Did something happen to her so that she lost her voice? Northwestgnome (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect to Gaming Community. Malinaccier (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dupe of the information at gamer. Not notable enough for redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable compilation album. Notability is not established using references from reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. Ragib (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced neologism, something made up, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. See WP:USEFUL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software that is sourced only to the publisher. A softpedia link is not a source, and neither is placement on a list of software that works with Microsoft Windows. Searching references links to press releases and patents, but not reliable mainstream sources that show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need this? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee#Milwaukee County. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Small elementary school which does not claim to notability. Fails Wikipedia:SCHOOL (though the guideline is a failed consensus). Based on the fact that it is private and isn't affiliated with any large organizations, I do not see a merge/redirect happening. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, with no prejudice towards creating such lists where left-handedness is relevant (e.g. boxers or pitchers). Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While in some cases like baseball handedness is relevant, this is an inappropriate way to convey that. With about 10% of all people being left-handed, this is a completely indiscriminate list. Reywas92Talk 03:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article about an incident in which a kangaroo blundered into a house clearly fails WP:NOT#NEWS. It's not at all rare for kangaroos to hop into gardens of Australian houses near the bush and from time to time they enter houses; big deal. When kangaroos feel threatened they sometimes lash out at whatever's near them, so calling this an 'attack' is ludicrous. The claim that the incident had wider significance ("and the attack was used partly to justify the culling of 4,000 kangaroos in the Canberra area in May 2009") is not supported by the reference given, which simply mentions it alongside another incident relating to kangaroos in Canberra during 2009. Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Nikki♥311 02:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail general notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actor who once appeared in a 50 Cent film. No evidence of "significant roles," "a large fan base," etc. per WP:ENT Glenfarclas (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There are good arguments on all sides. It is quite clear that the article has many sources, and that a large proportion of them are self-published. However, whether the remaining secondary sources are notable has not really been resolved in this discussion. On the delete side, Szzuk's comments are basically WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:USELESS. On the merge side, Exit2DOS's concern about the lack of articles on other types of suture does not hold up; WP:WAX. On the keep side, Malarman's comments do not really show why this should be kept, Tatsel1's comments are incomprehensible. Overall, a pretty balanced debate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medical technique for which it is impossible to establish notability for inclusion. The technique certainly exists, but I don't see that it is notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
***Does that article really count when Serdev is the managing editor of the journal? Narayanese (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2015, 88 %of cosmetic procedures performed by these member surgeons will be non-surgical. The authors concluded that “If current growth rates continue into the next decade, the future demand in cosmetic surgery will be driven largely by non-surgical procedures.” Professor Serdev is notably in the forefront of this trend. In this regard his techniques have certainly been cited in medical text books-for example see "Simplified Facial Rejuvenation(Hardcover) by Melvin A. Shiffman, Sid J. Mirrafati" Hardcover: 658 pages Publisher: Springer; 1st edition (December 12, 2007) pages 267,271,272,286. Professor Serdev's the subject matter is interesting and provides information to the public accessing this encyclopedia about a contemporary but established (albeit minimally invasive) cosmetic surgery technique. One must not lose sight that "Wikipedia's intent is to have articles that cover existing knowledge, not create new knowledge (original research)." Accordingly it is entirely subjective and incorrect for some editors (possibly including competing surgeons) to deny the notability of this method when it is widely disseminated on the www and can there be seen to be used by many other practitioners of cosmetic surgery around the globe. One should also not lose sight of the function of an encyclopedia-"Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.[2] Diderot -(Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert Encyclopédie. University of Michigan Library:Scholarly Publishing Office and DLXS.)Malarman (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" Professor Serdev is cosmetic surgeon-not a plastic surgeon. His contribution is in the field of minimally invasive cosmetic surgery (although he has published in the past on burns surgery in the plastic/military surgery literature). The article appears to be informative in intent rather than promotional. An encyclopedia is theoretically supposed to be a source of information to the general public and the subject article has the necessary authenticity to adequately fulfill that criterion. Claims of "fluff" are unreasonable and serve to diminish the genuine contribution of this surgeon’s innovation(s). This editorial forum should not serve as an opportunity for some princes of darkness to disengage the public.Malarman (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to main article. Of 5 people who spoke up here, 4 seem to be fine with redirect to main article. One person wrote "Keep When there is enough information to support a separate article on a specialized aspect [...]". There is, at least currently, not enough information. The article contains no directly sourced information; there is one external link, which is however about the order and does not even contain the term "Halbbruder".
The article may be recreated in the future according to the conditions described by Vagu's last message. In that event, it should be under the singular form "Halbbruder", and the article needs to mention the primary meaning of the term wikt:Halbbruder. — Sebastian 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable title of common members of the Teutonic Knights, who served in economy and hospitals. There is sufficient information about Halbbrüder (and Sariantbrüder, who are not the same) in the main article. According to the homepage of the German Order http://www.deutscher-orden.de/all_geschichte_start.php the informations of the article are wrong. The author of the article does not understand the difference between Sariantbrothers (warriors) and Halfbrothers (workers) Thw1309 (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to know what you are talking about, Thw1309. Since you claim the article is erroneous, why dont you ellaborate or use a couple of sources instead of deleting? i will change the article and include the speculation that sariantbruder and halbbruder are not the same, but i need a source. i cant just expand the article without using sources, its like writing fiction. the only source i have on the matter is a teutonic order osprey book. now correct me if i am wrong but i really dont believe such books of lovely immages and simplified historiography can be used as sources to anything (thats why i didnt bother including it). i have no access to german bibliography, my german is poor, and believe me, i have searched thorowghly in the english and greek bibliography and there are simply not enough serious sources about the matter. i wrote the stub in hopes that someone would decide to write something serious on the subject. Thats what i thought stubs are for. as you said, the article contains non-confirmed, deficient and probably erroneous information. I say its better than no information at all.Vagu (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i added the difference between sariant and halfbrothers in the article. i used that order german website as a source as i checked it and it does mention exactly what the original Teutonic Order article mentions about them. of cource this 'source' looks more like a fan made website with pictures and text, and i fail to see how we can accept it as a valid source without doubt. I know this is going in the wrong direction (the article is getting bigger and there is only one source), so i can only hope someone will rewrite it. delete and rewrite please. dont just delete content that is not available anywhere else. Vagu (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one big problem. Halbbrüder were the farmhands and servants of the order. Burchard von Schwanden wrote about them: "dâmit er sich verbinde zu dem ordene an dienste, an vihe zu hûtene, zu pflegene, zu acker zu gêne unde zu sein unde alle arbeit zu tûne nâch sînes conmendûres willen unde des hûses nôt." Halbbruder is the title for everyone, who is not important. If someone was neither Knightbrother nor Priestbrother nor Sariantbrother, then he was a halfbrother. Does someone realy think, the guy, who had to take care of the cows had any chance to become a Knight? All that is to be found about the cothes ist: "Daz oberste cleit sol sîn ein schaprûn mit wîten ermelen und mit eme halben crûze" which means, they wear a half cross on a short coat with wide arms. Why should they provide a farmhand with a white coat, when even Sariantbrothers, who were full members of the order had to use grey coats. Halfbrothers did not fight. Then why should they have shields? I don't know much about halfbrothers, except they were the servants, no full members of the order and the wore a half cross. Sources from these times usually show you much information about the lords, but almost nothing about the servants. Paper was to expensive to write about them. All I know about Halbrüder is: The informations of this article can not be right, because it refers to the Sariantbrothers or it is complete nonsense. Do you really want an article Halfbrothers were the servants of the Teutonic Order. Everyone who was no full Member of the Order was called that way. They were wearing a half cross on the coat. Please don't misunderstand me. I do not want Wikipedia only to contain informations about the lords. There simply is not enough information for a special article. The information of this special title of the order's servants should be part of Wikipedia, but it is not notable enough to create a special article. The same way I would be against an article about Knightbrothers, because they was no difference to any other knighted member of any other order, except the different colour of the coat. This simply is not enough to be notable. --Thw1309 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it does make sense now. lets just delete the article since its more fiction than facts. It would certainly be a better idea if there was a separate article about the various Members of the Order, or Ranks of the Order and their uniforms, were some of the information provided above could be included, (as there are already references in the internet linking to this very halbbruder article which means people are indeed interedsted in the issue and are getting their info out of it, and the article is not just some space-taking junk. All this should not be included in the main Order Article in my opinion, in order to try and keep it relatively short, but should be included in a new article linked to it. I am not going to start this new article as i am clearly not qualified to do so. Thw1309, you could easily write something up on the subject, though. Do you want me to start it and let the editing and sources to you? Or do you insist such info should not be included in wikipedia. One last thing that puzzles me is that you say that halfbrothers are cowherders and servants. Still the site you provided mentions them (together with sariantbrothers) as Nobles?? Makes no sense to me. Maybe its the eastern medieval society that is more complicated than i though, as i never really understood this whole slave/noble/knight concept with the ministerialen and all that complex social structure... Vagu (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There isn't really a strong case for keeping the article. Arguments for keeping included WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:USEFUL, and WP:VALINFO. The BLP concerns raised by the deletion side are substantial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor is a collection of indiscriminate information. Non encyclopedic topic. RadioFan (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Call of Duty (series). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a minor feature in a video game. I don't see it as having any inherent notability, not even as a pop-culture phenomenon. I can't ever see us having an article on the dogs in Call of Duty. Wikipedia is not a game guide. There's also a question of sourcing; all we've got right now is a Wikia page, which typically aren't considered reliable sources. The content itself seems to be well-written, it just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Fortunately, that Wikia page does exist, so we don't need to worry about transferring content elsewhere. That Wikia page even comes up first for a Google search. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, withdrawn -- thanks for the research :) Andrea105 (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks any reliable sources to establish the notability of this band per WP:BAND or WP:GNG; a web search to find such sources was unsuccessful. Andrea105 (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Said to be big on the Omaha, Nebraska suburban pop punk scene, but apparently unknown to Google News. When one of the highlists is "some spots on the Vans Warped Tour" we are not a million miles away from here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable split album. Cannibaloki 00:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete A5. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced vanity article that does not establish notability GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page for completely unnotable musician, as evidenced by orphan-page status and broken citation links to sources that were not noteworthy to begin with. Google yields no significant coverage. Overall, fails WP:MUSIC. Fatpl (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]