The result was Keep, as per consensus; there are no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources found, speedy declined. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One third party source but not enough for WP:N it seems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn per Michael Q. Schmidt. Obviously I have horrible Google-fu. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1S, no real notability asserted beyond directing four questionably notable documentaries, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woah man, if you're gonna delete all my pages, at least give me half an hour to change things and figure out what you want. Not saying you're right in that I need more references, but let me at least breath. You're deleting a lot of hard work without letting me argue my side. sloggerbum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloggerbum (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was What Golbez said Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I redirected this at first, but on second thoughts the term isn't really close enough to the name of this 'Vitaminwater' product to serve as a useful redirect, it would apply equally well to something like Berocca, so I'm just deleting. Flowerparty☀ 01:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems too much like an advert, difficult to imagine being able to rescue this. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was What Golbez said Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax, not backed up by the sources. Insufficient coverage in sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
promotional article for an artist with only one newly released album, therefore fails WP:MUSICIAN Passportguy (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was A7 Indeed a real band, but didn't assert notability per WP:MUSIC. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little complex. I can't quite tell if just the name was made up (i.e. the band was real but the name was created) or if there might be a hoax going on here that that just looks similar to the bands linked to. Nowhere is a band called A.L.X. referred to in the sources, after all, and the names in the band do certainly beg the question of whether this is a hoax with links designed to obfuscate that fact. Tyrenon (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry about the hoax confusion - I used the template from the Fartz so I didn't have to make the page from scratch. I should have started with a sandbox, so my bad. It's a real band, they have quite a few shows in the area - it's made up of a bunch of old rock veterans. heard them at a show, realized these are big wigs that should be in here. Hope that helps. I still want to do more cleanup. sloggerbum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloggerbum (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Alexf(talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely hoax. Player not listed at http://www.ebbsfleetunited.co.uk/eufc/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=86 Passportguy (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Article needs expansion, not deletion. Cheers. I'mperator 17:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article falls short of notability for singles by a substantial margin from all appearances. Tyrenon (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to 3ABN. Jamie☆S93 21:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the station appears to have a permit, I see no other assertion that it exists. I might be getting over-eager here, but I think this might fail WP:N. On top of this, the call letters are non-standard. Tyrenon (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Keeper | 76 04:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:FILM and WP:CRYSTAL. Tyrenon (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A disambig page which leads to only redlinks. Tyrenon (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This lacks sources and appears to be a non-notable classical composition. Tyrenon (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (NAC). American Eagle (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While there is technically an assertion of notability, I don't think it makes the cut. The article doesn't even contain a DoB, and the person was the head of a department within the institution, not the institution itself. Tyrenon (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:OUTCOMES (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be former Pomo settlement day on Wikipedia. As before, I find that this falls well short of notability. Tyrenon (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, only non-notable people involved. Only one of the five awards is from a notable festival, and even then I don't think that's enough for it to pass muster. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mostly for winning best dramatic short at the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival, but also for this reliable source review: Praise Pictures and these two pieces on Hildebrand: Alliance.ca Christian-movie.com. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While some assertion of notability is hinted at, I think this is a case where the person falls a bit short. Of the two links offered, one is the person's MySpace entry. Tyrenon (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:OUTCOMES (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The location is a place on a map with no particular assertion of notability. Tyrenon (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the article asserts that he played professionally, it provides no evidence of this and no indication that he played at a major league level of any sort, thereby falling short of notability. Further, the article is unsourced. Tyrenon (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable - essentially zero secondary source mentions. worthawholebean talkcontribs 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.nationsrestaurantnews-digital.com/nationsrestaurantnews/20090511/?pg=56, http://www.faremagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=52D7168A259A440ABF429933A03841C0, http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS119746+07-May-2009+BW20090507, http://www.nrn.com/article.aspx?keyword=&menu_id=-1&id=346982. There are plenty more, simply google "James J. Greco" or "James J. Greco Bruegger's" and your search will be filled with articles. He is an important man to the industry, the business world and beyond and thus it is important that he have a Wikipedia article.68.109.18.69 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Notability established and nom appears withdrawn. However, the article still needs some of theose many hits incorporated as references...--Kubigula (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; no Google News mentions, for example. worthawholebean talkcontribs 20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As yet unreleased album with no particular assertion of notability. Also, I believe it fails WP:CRYSTAL Tyrenon (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a blatant hoax. The one source offers a date of death of 2038, and no other assertion of notability which can be verified is offered. Tyrenon (talk) 20:10, 1 June 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)) . |
hi: just wanted to let you know i've updated the article with more references to a variety of his published works, and also another article stating his popularity. hopefully this will help turn the tide when a decision has been made on this article. i plan to flush it out still more, but have to sign off for tonight. i have done some clicking around though and can assure you that the toronto comics scene is vibrant and notable and there are people who will be happy to find chip zdarsky listed here. i will also be doing an entry for j. bone, and other comics creators. Wiki leedetailed (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]
i also wanted to let you know that i have added a redirect but it is only because there was a lower case z in zdarsky. more and more i believe that this is the right name for the entry because this is comics persona. my example of Carrot Top seems to be a viable one. anyway, will research more secondary sources as soon as possible but i would like to note that there are several other canadian comic artists in that list that would probably demur to be on the list when chip zdarsky is not, and that there are several articles there that are not as fleshed out as this one is.. Wiki leedetailed (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]
i would like to note that Passport guy has warned against the use of "sockpuppeting" in this matter. in short, i let friends know i was working on an article re: chip zdarsky for wikipedia -- my first! and that it might be deleted. it is likely that these friends took it upon themselves to champion the article. as i have noted above, toronto has a well-respected and thriving comics community and they would find it hard not to see chip as notable. i however, would like to state implicitly here that i have not asked anybody to champion this article, and have been trying to comply with all suggestions that have been made for its improvement by Passport guy. the thing about chip zdarsky is he is unique and crazy and to list him as his birth name "steve murray" would be like calling harpo marx, adolph marx, his real name. chip zdarsky is chip zdarsky which is likely why he was first looked at by wikipedia as a hoax whereas he is instead an incredibly talented artist and writer. Wiki leedetailed (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]
*Delete - It's one of the many articles on wikipedia that is non notabale. DeletionMojoMan (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Music article with a questionable-at-best assertion of notability. Not every song which gets used by a single wrestling star meets the criteria for notability as a song, and no other assertion of notability is provided. In a sense, this feels like wrestling cruft after a fashion. Tyrenon (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As yet unreleased single; fails notability for music. Tyrenon (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization with no reliable sources as to its notability. All sources are just that it exists. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable fictional character of a soap opera that hasn't even made his first appearance yet Passportguy (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This usage not found in the 32 non-wiki ghits. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted as hoax; user blocked as hoaxer. DS (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A recording that would be significant for the guest artists it features, if only any proof could be ascertained that there is any truth to this article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rise and a trend among entries from India that try and create SEO tricks to influence engines for proper indexing. In a way, there are advertising agencies that are creating wiki articles for not-so-established models and actors. In majority of the cases, these articles sound like a cut-paste prose form of their resume. They have no citation, notability and in most cases lack any published external link. This wiki bio fits under the trend described above. As a platform of repute and source of encyclopedic knowledge, I am on a mission to form a like-minded team of wiki admins/users to identify such biographic 'fake' wiki and mark them for Afd. In most cases they are db-spam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialprof (talk • contribs) 10:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Will consider userfication for Wikimjb if they request it, so that th article may be improved and then reviewed for a return to the article space. Discuss this with me on my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, the prod was deleted after the long list of external links was deleted, but I think the bigger problem is lack of notability. Only 4 Google news hits, and 3 of them are press releases. 145 Google hits, but I still don't see significant, reliable, independent coverage - these are all blogs, press releases, facebook hits, etc. I don't believe the fact that the organisation's website was nominated for, but didn't win, a Webby is enough on its own to prove that the organisation itself is notable. Note that the article's author was blocked for COI for this article, and that the proposed deletion tag was removed by a brand new single purpose account user. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to currently meet WP:N as required for any WP:BLP subjects. rootology/equality 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems silly to me to list constituencies in an area that doesn't exist any more (Cleveland, England was abolished inthe 90s). I expect boundries have changed since the county anyway and that this is out of date. Computerjoe's talk 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Computerjoe's rationale for deletion (posted on my talk page as article creator) was:
Cleveland doesn't exist; why on earth is there an article on its parliamentary composition?
The reason this area is treated separately is that the Boundary Commission for England treated it separately from North Yorkshire and County Durham in the 2004/5 boundary review. Their web site lists this review as "Cleveland", although the detailed press releases refer to "the area covered by the unitary authorities of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees". I do not think there would be much enthusiasm for article titles like List of Parliamentary constituencies in the area covered by the unitary authorities of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees. This is one of a set of short lists / articles covering the whole of England, see Category:Lists of UK Parliamentary constituencies in England, and if simply deleted would leave this area undescribed. The areas of the former counties of Avon and Humberside are treated the same way - Berkshire, Cheshire and Bedfordshire are slightly different as they are still ceremonial counties.
As to whether it should be "List of ..." or not, as mentioned by Martin Klein above, it seemed right as there is no actual information about the individual constituencies here, merely pointers to their own articles.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted as A7 - page does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. TerriersFan (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable club. Speedy declined by single-purpose-account whose only edits have been to remove the db tag from this article (twice). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was tagged for transwiki to Wikisource; now it's tagged as a possible copyright violation, and either way, it's not encyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Roofio clearly exists. However, there is no indication of notability. Sources are all self-publsihed by the school, no indication of 3rd party coverage. And the killer sentence: Roofio is a truly King's School Sport currently played (at King's) by only the Upper Sixth Form GedUK 15:49, 8 June 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)) . |
Non-notable school game Passportguy (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give Roofio a chance, heck, maybe even play it. But deleting it from the Wikipedia system will be no way to help unknown and amateur sports become the greater successes they deserve.
Let's put Roofio on the internet map, starting with Wikipedia!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.81.1 (talk) — 86.149.81.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete non-notable if only played by a group of students at one school. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your new game. Beach drifter (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So to delete the article would be deleting the chance for anybody wishing to play the game the opportunity to learn how it works/the protocols etc. It is a sad, sad day that members of the Wikipedia community are willing to put down an idea that is merely being fully described here. Wikipedia is meant to be the peoples encylopedia, and a platform for groundbreaking content to be contributed to. The people have a right to learn about sports and ideas through the medium of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.81.1 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not have as a purpose the publicizing of things made up in school one day. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we had video evidence of the school championships forthcoming? Would that be evidence enough that it is a large enough sport and worthy of a page? We could even have a log book kept. unsigned comment added by DaveyWundaBoi (talk
* Keep/Merge Thank you. On this note, allow me to draw your attention to Eton Fives , a self admitted "uncommon sport", not dissimilar to although admittedly slightly more widespread than Roofio. Eton Fives has none of the references you speak of and is linked to similar pages as Roofio. Even more striking is the resemblence between Roofio and the article on the Eton Wall Game. I cannot distinguish enough of a difference in this instance to remove Roofio without removing articles on numerous other sports. King's Roofio (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by King's Roofio (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I mentioned earlier, the school's website certainly had numerous references to Roofio - although I have been informed that the section on it has disappeared. I will speak to the system admin. as soon as possible and have this sorted. Other sources include the Grantham Journal. The Journal has reported the spread of Roofio and even included match reports. SJ Branson's book, "The King's School Grantham - 660 years of a Grammar School." also provides evidence to further Roofio's case. SJ Branson has been heavily involved in the school's archives for a number of years and I'm sure that if required, he would be available for comment. King's Roofio (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies - the Brad Taylor referenced appears to be the incorrect person. I shall remove the link! However, if you read the article carefully, you will see that in fact it does not claim the sport was "made up" by him - instead that Roofio as we know it today has in fact developed over centuries. Brad Taylor was one of the people who helped "reinvent" the sport; deciding to write official rules, etc. King's Roofio (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is to confirm that Roofio and the author of the article (King's Roofio (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)) have permission to use text from [1] and [2], awarded to them by the author of that site; "Luke.Johno". Other parts of [3] appear to be taken from my original article, on Wikipedia. I hereby give "Luke.Johno" rights to use this information freely. Both links contain the message "Re-use is permitted under the GFDL". King's Roofio (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
King's Roofio (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish to refer participants to the Eton Field Game article. This particle article has fewer citations than the Roofio page and yet is considered to be sufficiently relevant for publication. This begs the question, why is the Roofio page being targetted? While Roofio has rich history at the school, it is evidently a fledging nation sport and as of yet lacks reference in the wider press, yet this makes the information on the page no less credible. The Eton Football Variant articles rely upon their historical relevance to sport at Eton College, yet Roofio holds the same relevance to the sport at the King's School.Thelliwell (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — Thelliwell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment You are sorely mistaken in the assumption that the original author is simply creating usernames to defend the article. I certainly am no puppet of the author, and although known to him, I like many others have contributed to this discussion of my own volition. Furthermore, I would ask you to consider the viewpoint that face of the media is changing. While in the past newspapers etc. have been regarded as the bastions of information and credibility, recent developments in personal media, such as blogs, have meant that personal information sharing has gained massively in terms of authority to the point that they are in regular use with esteemed writers and media agencies. Wikipedia itself is a child of the internet age, yet some members seem to refuse that the internet has completely changed information sharing and scoff at the use of blogs and social networking sites as citations, when these are possibly some of the most information rich resources available today. Thelliwell (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My speedy delete tag for copyvio has been removed, despite the total lack of a legitimate GFDL claim. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely that anything user-edited or self-published is suspect, including, as you suggest, large parts of Wikipedia. However, references to appropriate sources of this nature cannot be considered any more "suspect" than information published in say, a national newspaper or a thesis. There are many instances of respectable authors conveying misleading information to readers and so I do not believe that the use of user-edited material is an issue as long as there is consensus of its reliability - so far you have disagreed. As I have said, please direct me towards any problem links, I will attempt to solve problems as soon as possible in order to make the article more verifiable. I have also offered to obtain e-copies of paperwork citing Roofio as an traditional past time and developing sport. King's Roofio (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reply to previous comments regarding the inconsistency in the application of Wikipedia protocol, I would wish to assert that if the rules are not applied uniformly, then there is no grounds to apply them at all. Effectively, what is happening is that members are targetting articles of their choice rather than acting as moderators. The call for deletion has become a matter of personal prerogative and therefore offers no valid grounds for deletion, hence rendering the call void. Furthermore, the notability of the topic is subjective and I do not think it is the place of any member to dictate what is notable to any particular individual. The Wikipedia guidelines governing notability are vague and seem to be open to interpretation by individual members. Thelliwell (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If only they spent half this time and effort on their homework. <sigh> Accounting4Taste:talk 22:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Accounting4Taste, neither Thelliwell nor King's Roofio have claimed to be seasoned Wikipedia editors, and the rules and regulations that surround the deletion policy were merely mentioned and in no way deserving of a patronising response from yourself. Such a comment was unneccessary and unhelpful to this article's discussion. The question is not of "learning the policies" in an attempt to change them, but of Roofio, the article which we find ourselves discussing.
Articles have been found just today that display a map of the School dating back to around the 1800's, possibly earlier (needs confirming), that clearly display an area designated to the playing of a ball game at free periods (break/lunch), the name of the game is stated on the map but it is rather unclear on first glance, and we have endeavoured to take the document to our local library for a closer inspection.
Once we have this document returned, we shall look to photograph/scan the map and place it upon the internet, citing it as an article which comfortably holds enough evidence to be used as a significant reference that "Roofio" was not in fact made up "in one day". Twbanks (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Twbanks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was speedy deleted as a blatant advertisement. Jamie☆S93 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advert. The author, who is the company's chairman, could not even be bothered to write an encyclopedia article. Instead he submits an OTRS ticket to allow him to copy his own website. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nn website plans. Google only 39 hits.[38] EWJNK (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be a huge company ("The monthly expenses of the Sheharyar Electronics is $4.88 billion but the total income is $5.11 billion till January 2008") however Google gives zero relevant hits for "Sheharyar Electronics". I Afd-ed instead of tagging it as a hoax just in case there is a misspelling in the company name. Passportguy (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't assert notability, no sources, sounds (to a Westerner) to be nonsensical. mynameincOttoman project Review me 16:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried redirecting this to Lady Antebellum, but it was declined by the author, who said that her winning an award from SESAC (verified here) and writing the majority of Lady Antebellum's material was enough for a standalone article. Besides the fact that she recorded a non-notable, self-released album with her mother (Linda Davis, who is irrefutably notable), I see absolutely nothing that makes her sufficiently notable for a standalone article. (Keep in mind that all of the band's material was co-written by the other two members as well.) This article, as it stands, repeats material from Lady Antebellum's article in a desperate attempt to not be a stub, but I think she still fails to meet the criterion for individual member of a band, as she has not "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, Award + Songwriter with songs that have charted + Significant Coverage = Keep. Article is thin now, but it can definitely be improved. Corpx (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artist is not culturally significant; page originally created by artist's girlfriend Aletheia82 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an art movement that was described as new when the article was created in 2006. There does not appear to be any coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this movement. The only Google News results are for something behind a pay wall in the Yakima Herald and a short mention in the Irish Times. The Yakima Herlad article appears to be an event announcement based on the excerpt text provided. The Irish Times article] is a very short piece that reads like an event announcement and is insubstatial. Whpq (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non resident embassies, these bilateral articles are about relations between the nation states, so the historical context before either of these nations actually existed should be covered in Mughal Empire and Mongol Empire. the section of trade is really becoming a WP:NOT#NEWS section and actually a copy and paste from 1 article which violates WP:COPYVIO. there is a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, their relations seem often in a multilateral regional context [43] . there's this article but it's the usual "we would like to cooperate". also the Pakistan foreign ministry says nothing of specific bilateral relations [44]. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No third-party coverage whatsoever. A possible COI looking at the creator's contributions. LeaveSleaves 13:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declining WP:CSD#A9 speedy deletion and taking to AfD; there are some technical points about A9 and allmusic.com I'd like to discuss. The page University of North Florida Jazz Department exists; so does that mean, for the purposes of A9, that we should speedy or not, when the band is the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I"? Also, I see "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble" on allmusic.com, but the entry is very short; does that suggest we should have a page on the Jazz Ensemble in addition to the department? And finally, if I'm trying to make a call on A9, and there's no page on the band but I have reason to think we might want a page on the band, what do I do? Inquiring minds want to know. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The band is listed as the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I" because it is a specific group of musicians who are a part of the larger University of North Florida Jazz Department. There is a Jazz Ensemble II and III, as well as other groups like the UNF Guitar ensemble and UNF Wind Ensemble. The album "With All My Love" is listed as being by the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I" because they are the specific group on the recording. I have included a link to the UNF Jazz Ensemble I's page on the UNF website. I hope this clears up any problems at that this article is not deleted because it is an important accomplishment by the music department of the University of North Florida.
-The222
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notability; almost every major city contains proponents of several popular genre's of music. Aside from a single appearance by Bob Marley in the late 70's (which is apparently not notable enough to garner it's own article) no effort is made to indicate why Reggae music in or from Chicago is noteworthy. Jesse (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day Gigs (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was previously deleted at CSD. It has since been recreated by a different author. Article has multiple issues, not much improved upon by the first version. Not eligible for CSD because of notability issues. No articles link to it, and it is a dead-end. Neutralle 12:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete of this self-promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to Illinois-Indiana League. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is exact duplicate of Illinois-Indiana League and doesn't give any additional information. dashiellx (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Gun fu. No consensus to delete. The arguments for merging are slightly stronger then the arguments for keeping. Otherwise this is a tossup (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial OR (also unreferenced of course) that only recounts plot details from the film Equilibrium, totally redundant to Gun Fu. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ONEEVENT cannot apply here, and Banjeboi's presentation of sources is unquestioned - cannot accord consensus in either direction Fritzpoll (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? Stars in one movie, the sequel appearances seem to be bit more of just a trivial mention. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, I just came to this page to improve it with information from the Journal of Bisexuality aricle "The Pleasure and Pain of Chasing Amy" which comments on the multiple interpretations of the characters as understood by viewers of different sexualities. The character is a minor figure of interest in queer studies, although this information has been heterowashed out by editors.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has been Speedied a few times before. Still no indication of notability. Take it here to resolve remaining issue over notability. Shadowjams (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Card game with no indication of notability. No google hits that appear related. Shadowjams (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition at best, although not even an english word. Shadowjams (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like an advertisement, and relies primarily on its own website for sources. Further, it seems all the external links are to Softbrands websites (seems like spam) and the already-existing orphan tags are a sign that this article was added for advertising purposes only. I do not see anything encyclopedic or particularly noteworthy about this topic. Also, as the primary editor of this article is a Softbrands employee, one can clearly see how this violates WP:COI. How can there be any doubt this is being used solely for advertising? Timneu22 (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any references to back any of this up, or to confer any notability. A Google search reveals many mirrors of this article, and a couple of other Earls of Eglinton with the same name, but basically nothing on this guy. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By its own admission, the article is based on a "reputation factor": i.e. it is POV and OR Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod deleted with no improvements so AFD made: the document looks like a resume, number of irrelevant links with no relevant sourcing. notability highly in question and the quality is very much lacking. decide for your self Rmzadeh ► 08:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
noting that Austria has no resident embassy in Uruguay. only 2 minor agreements including 1 for the abolition of visas (which is something most western countries are doing). almost all coverage is in multilateral not bilateral context or about...football, English search, German search. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Organization fails to meet notability requirements as per WP:COMPANY. Details provided here. Picatrix (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*delete Seems to me from the article that it's "The Story of Glass" (which doesn't seem to have an article) which is notable, not the company that made it. And I'm not sure they were 'pioneering' in the use of CD-ROM and kiosks. Someone has collected a huge archive of references to kiosk development (unfortunately it's on a blacklisted server, but is not itself spam. Maybe a list of old spams. Can I post it not as a link or will I still get pulled up for spam?) and these guys don't seem to figure on it--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC) *Keep: article seems fine now.[reply]
My only request is for Cantingle (talk · contribs) to quote the relevant information in the sources. That isn't an unreasonable request, is it? Once Cantingle has done that, I will be able to evaluate whether or not the company has received enough coverage to pass WP:CORP and hopefully change my vote to keep. Cunard (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that folks can become annoyed when editors vote to delete an article when they haven't first personally attempted to confirm the sources that are associated with it. However, I nominated the article for deletion after checking the available references (see the talk page for the article). I discussed why at length on the talk page (and received no response). I have already addressed the previous citations. As for the new ones, If Cantingle has access to the sources (and presumably he or she does, else how did these latest references materialize?) then why not simply indicate to us what they say? I'm all for assuming good faith, but why assume it when unquestionably establishing it (and, happily, any putative notability) is as easy as posting excerpts and summaries from the citations mentioned? As a matter of fact, when I post citations I provide excerpts for purposes of discussion. Is there some particular reason why bald citations without excerpts are being provided in this case? At any rate, when it comes to "getting off one's ass" one can quite reasonably ask people with access to citations to provide excerpts. When all the sources I can verify mention the company or one of its products in passing, it seems sensible to dig deeper when new ones are provided. If Cantingle really is interested in keeping the article why not post appropriate excerpts from the citations together with the publication information in the notes? Simply sticking citations on an article means nothing in itself; the citations provided should establish notability. How are these citations relevant to establishing notability? According to WP:COMPANY "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." None of these articles appear to be about "Art of Memory (company)". As best I am able to tell the new sources are no less anemic (as far as establishing notability goes) than the previously provided ones. Finally, I don't want to waste my time or anyone else's. If those citations establish notability then we can keep the article and go back to working on more important things. Hence, I ask Cantingle: please post illustrative excerpts. If Cantingle is unwilling to do so, can somebody else? If not, can we extend this review so that I have time to dig them all out one by one and to address them? --Picatrix (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Posting citations in support of individual sentences such as "Art of Memory has produced work for System Simulation Ltd including the gallery kiosk system at the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art." is not the same thing as posting citations that establish notability.
Wikipedia's notability guidelines are particularly important in the case of articles about business entities providing commercial services, especially when the articles associated with these companies are basically a list of products they have created together with a link to the company website, as is the case here.
According to WP:SPAM "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website." and "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." [emphasis added] ' --Picatrix (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Here the arguments to retain ranged from there being little information because the realtionship is young (which suggests supporting the postion of those seeking the article's deletion), WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and "it's just notable" with some spurious and unspecified notability standard that is apparently below WP:N. These are not valid arguments for retention. I must comment, however, and say that I share DGG's apparent frustration that these things are still coming to AfD at all whilst there are ongoing efforts to merge the material to more suitable locations. What we end up with is inconsistency, where some of these are kept and some deleted - in this case, consensus favours deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
significant lack of coverage of these 2 nations relations except on the football and hockey field. [50]. A search of the Azerbaijan foreign ministry reveals close to nothing on Spain. Existence of embassy is already covered in List of diplomatic missions of Azerbaijan. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article. |
” |
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GNG requires coverage in multiple RS - consensus favours deletion given the wekaness of arguments for retention Fritzpoll (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination with non resident embassies. Serbian foreign ministry lists bilateral relations for about 80 countries but not Azerbaijan. Only relations seem on the football field [53]. would oppose redirect as there appears to be no relationship. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Human rights in Estonia. Many conflicting arguments of varying merit in this discussion. The key deletion argument is WP:POVFORK, which hinges on both the title of the article and its contents. The arguments for retention don't focus on this, although they address it occasionally - instead there are arguments that it is verifiable from sources, that other articles like this exist (which is not a satisfactory argument for retention) ot that all the issues are cleanup issues. There appears to evidence of canvassing the debate as well, which muddies the waters somewhat. Ultimately, the balance of the arguments indicates a consensus that this article not exist in its current form on Wikipedia. That leaves me two options: merge/redirect or outright deletion. Deletion policy indicates that I should merge/redirect in order to preserve content - this close is therefore merge and redirect to bulk out the small amount of content at Human rights in Estonia#Allegations of discrimination. A redirect must be left for GFDL attribution preservation. I know this close will not please some of you - feel free to discuss this with me civilly at my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a pure content fork of History_of_Russians_in_Estonia#Allegations_of_discrimination and Anti-Russian_sentiment#Baltic_states, containing identical content as those mentioned sections. It is a POV fork created and supported by a number of Russian nationalist editors, as the title asserts discrimination as a fact when it is at most an allegation, and cherry picking of sources and text from the two articles mentioned to support that POV. As can be seen in the following search, this is the only article within Wikipedia prefixed with "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in ....". Martintg (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article was recently started, it's a day old, it has validly cited sources and is rather well written. The only valid counter-argument I see for deleting it, is that the other side isn't being provided. However those that want it deleted aren't even trying to provide the other side. This article, that has great potential, is trying to be shot down right away, for nothing except POV reasons. It's 1 day old. Give it a month. Provide the other side's viewpoints. And then talk about deleting it. Also, it's similar to this fine article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States. All the arguments used for the deletion of this article, can apply to the US article; but that article was given a chance to thrive, and it turned into a damn good article. Why not give this article a chance? If you can point me to any wikipedia article that was written in a day or in a week, I will bow to that article. So please, give it a chance! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(discussion moved to the talk page)
And why all of the sudden do we move the conversation away from the AfD? I think it's quite clear based on this latest exchange that "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia" is both POV in scope and an invitation to WP:COATRACK, while the appropriate article is "Human Rights in Estonia" which starts out with a history of human rights in Estonia (I think we can agree to limit this from independence on), then can include a section on current alleged misdeeds and current suggestions for perceived needs for improvement (both point and counterpoint as appropriate). I would consider this issue settled. I would NOT rename this article to Human Rights in Estonia. I suggest this article be deleted per original nom and the appropriate article be created from scratch. I am sure those wishing to contribute to allegations of inappropriate acts by the Estonian authorities or Estonian society will recreate their content, hopefully this time with the appropriate reputable opposing viewpoints as well. PetersV TALK 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS.Here are some citations giving an an alternative perspective Immigration and emigration in historical perspective By Ann Katherine Isaacs, p 188 :
The question of alleged discrimination of the Russian-speaking population in the newly independent Baltic countries has served as a pretext to try to lock the region within a Russian sphere of influence...Russian hopes of maintaining direct control over the baltic states proved ineffective. At the same time Moscow's atemts to take political advantage of the issue of the Russophone minority were successful. Russia used virtually every international forum to present its claims of the violations of human rights in Estonia and Latvia etc.
As Human rights in Estonia has already been created, an appropriate subject (and with the same allegations included as part of content critical of Estonia), I move this AfD go to quick delete. PetersV TALK 18:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO!! Why are we still arguing about whether or not to keep the article? PetersV TALK 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How come I provide sources from 2004-2006 where they say discrimination exists, and you provide 1 link for both UN, AI and others, and then it's from 1993 anyway? Is it the way you understand verifiability? Then you're wrong. FeelSunny (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) MacMedtalkstalk 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails both WP:PROF and the mention of swine flu is only one event. MacMedtalkstalk 03:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company (only 600 ghits [62] (mostly self-promotion and corp linklists) and 2 gnews [63]). Smells like advertising (original poster name matched company name). Has been cleaned up and inappropriate EL have been removed, but still not notable. 7 talk | Δ | 02:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Power Pad . Fritzpoll (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PRODUCT, non-notable software from a non-notable company. Gigs (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
((helpme))
template, or you can ask some people in the Software Wikiproject for help. It will definitely help if you register an account as well. Please keep in mind that the username policy strongly discourages corporate names, so please create a personal account name. Gigs (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one appears to be veering too much into WP:DICDEF territory, compounded by not meeting WP:RS standards. The list itself seems extremely incomplete, too. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. If people think a merge is best, let that be an editorial decision outside of AfD - there is no consensus for anything here Fritzpoll (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't make any sense, and is completely original research. It doesn't even meet with criteria that would make a Wikipedia article decent. Below are reasons--Jonah Ray Cobbs 01:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)JRC3:
A article that respects the fact that Wikipedia is a high-quality online encyclopedia should meet what criteria is above. It only meets one out of six major reasons. Therefore, it shouldn't be an article.--Jonah Ray Cobbs 01:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)JRC3
The result was merge to Pantheism. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Naturalistic was trying to nominate this but wasn't completing the process properly. I have let this user know. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not only devoid of all sources, but is completely misleading and inaccurate. Naturalistic (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Firstly, the article isn't advertising. Other delete !votes are generally around whether this article has room to grow. I think the added article in the bibliography indicates that it is very likely that there are many sources about this topic; academics love to study themselves and governments like to study other countries' systems. GedUK 13:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable list of external websites. Feels like advertising, but I can't tell for which EL. 7 talk | Δ | 00:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list of podcasts recorded by some random local radio personalities, along with links to each episode, would seem to be outside our remit, no? Biruitorul Talk 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Discoutned multple !votes by one editor, and the arguments for retention are weak - sourcing does not automatically equate to notability, and there is a failure to address the WP:NOT#NEWS issue, which is is actually incorporated into the general notability guideline. The weight of argument thus lends itself to deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is WP:NOTNEWS and has WP:BLP issues; it would be an obvious merge into Attila Olgac but I can't find any info about the person. I've mentioned the episode in a sentence at Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict#Legal challenges, which seems quite sufficient. Rd232 talk 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAt worst, the article requires some attention to correct so-called problems. Objections to this article appear to have no basis, other than to spare Turkish military blushes with regards to a well-sourced and upcoming movement to the EU courts over Attila Olgacs claims. Perhaps, the article would be best fit into a more general article about war crimes in Cyprus committed by all sides, and associated court judgements and international measures. Copperhead331 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ignored Greenman's non-commented vote. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom for IP editor: rationale from talk page: i nominated this article for deletion, there is very little information on this software on the web, and no relevant references. all of the references point to pages created by the developer of the software, and therefore it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and is probably just self promotion. No opinion myself, due to my lack of knowledge of this subject area. ascidian | talk-to-me 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. لennavecia 16:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet notability standards for musicians. Article claims RIAA gold record status for a recording, but the only sources that mention this are from his own web site, the web site for his latest recording, or other sites that are word-for-word copies of the same material, or a press release (not reliable). Given that the gold-record statord status is dubious at best, I argue that he does not meet musician notability standards. If someone can find independent verification od the gold-record claims, I'll gladly reconsider. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has absolutely no claims to notability. Its substance should be included in the Beloit, Wisconsin article. --Sift&Winnow 19:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unpopular mapping tool with article based on a very close paraphrase of this blog post. Attempting to search for references would mean too many false positives. Alexius08 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Art Institute of Charlotte. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page clearly states that this was an earlier name and provides a link to the page with the current name of this institute!! SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable candidate for an election Passportguy (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly does non-notable mean? Barentsz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I've added a selection of the EU-wide articles on this chap and also one from Russia. Does this qualify as notable and how/when does the notice above the page be permitted to take down (or is that something adm do themselves?) not quite sure: love to learn! Barentsz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Hello everyone: drawn some and Passportguy. Hey> could you help me out? I'm searching for the function to organise the external links and the references. References: how do I link the text to the references below (like footnoting for a term paper)... ? I can see that there is a function as someone wrote the French version and they have done it on that version. where can I locate the instructions for that? Thanks very much ! Barentsz (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NN corporation, fails WP:CORP Hipocrite (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - author agreed that it should be deleted on the talk page. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] National Geographic Bee Sample Questions[edit]
Article appears to be purely hypothetical, original research. JNW (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Whilst it is confusing, WP:CREATIVE is an extension of, not a substitute for WP:N. If it meets the latter, the former is irrelevant. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fail WP:Bio/WP:Creative Only one minor independent film to credit, without release. Minor appearance at convention. Only one project project foreshadowed, with no indication will ever be completed. Not evidence of cult following, or interest extending much beyond immediate family. Notability fails. Guidelines see WP:CREATIVE Rotovia (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear what this article is actually about. About a surname, about a place, about the temple? Also, no references and no assertion of notability. Prod was removed, so I list it here. Tone 19:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear consensus not to have a separate article, but proposed merge target seems to already have sufficient coverage without merging material from here. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear COI-violating BLP fails WP:AUTHOR -- only source given mentions this person in a passing way (mentioned she wore an evening gown at a union function in a gossip column that quickly moved onto other things). Keep Your Skirt On is only in three libraries as far as I can tell from WorldCat, failing standalone book notability guidelines. Real-Life Royalty is in some libraries, but certainly not an important body of work to give author a Wikipedia article, etc. per our standards. Slight argument to be made that the latter book might barely meet standards for an article on its own -- it at least meets some of the initial criteria instead of immediately failing, like the former book, but it looks like it'd be an uphill battle for even that. DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC) DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Since it's apparently one of several forms of some martial art I would've just merged it but there isn't an article on that and even if there were, is it notable? Sable232 (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Sysomos. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some notability, independent coverage. May also increase in notability as sites such as Facebook increasing turn to similar tools in search of profitability Rotovia (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short-lived, defunct MMORPG. The article is unclear as to whether it ever even made it out of beta. All references seem to be primary sources (official site, publishers' site, developers' site); there doesn't seem to be much in the way of substantive third-party sources about it. — Gwalla | Talk 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article do not appear to adhere to neither Wikipedia:Verifiability nor WP:WEB Nsaa (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]