The result was Speedy Delete as G3 Vandalism/Hoax. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this particular superhero character meets the notability guidelines. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted as housekeeping; page exists on another project. [1]. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this person does not meet the notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that there are not enough reliable, secondary sources to merit inclusion. NW (Talk) 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficiently notable author who also happens to play in a non notable band. The reactions described on the page to the author's stories do not constitute significant coverage; as such this fails WP:AUTHOR. None of the references really constitute reliable sources. A search for actual significant coverage turns up empty. Triplestop x3 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to PureNRG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination for 98.248.33.198 (talk · contribs), reason given was: PROD removed by creator without improvement. Still fails to meet the criteria for music albums. Note that the article has already been deleted three times for failure to meet criteria. Procedural nomination, I am neutral at the moment. Tim Song (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that qualifies this English professor for WP:ACADEMIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject was a well-accomplished and respected folklorist, for whom the University of Oregon's folklore library was named. See http://www.uoregon.edu/~flr/welcome/archives.htm:
He also assembled an important collection of regional photographs, also at the University of Oregon http://nwda-db.wsulibs.wsu.edu/findaid/ark:/80444/xv90307 :The Randall V. Mills Archives of Northwest Folklore, established in 1966, serve as a repository for information collected in Oregon by scholars and students of folklore. Named after former English Professor Randall V. Mills, the Archives have grown to become the largest facility of its kind in the Northwest, and are an important resource for scholars, students, and the general public interested in folklore of the region.
Randall V. Mills (1907-1952) was an English professor at the University of Oregon, a scholar of the history of transportation in the West, and a folklorist who was interested in proverbs, dialect, songs, superstitions and place names. Collection comprises negatives and prints of photographs of covered bridges and steamship captains in Oregon and railroad locomotives and cars in the western United States.
Beyond that, the subject wrote one of the major works on steamboats in the Pacific Northwest, Sternwheelers up Columbia, ISBN 0803258747. Worldcat shows 259 hits in libraries for the four editions of this book. There are 38 hits in Wikipedia alone for this work. There are 1,800 hits on Google for "Randall Vause Mills". So I think notability is established.Mtsmallwood (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person; serious conflict of interest by author; no references. Fails WP:VER, WP:N, WP:COI andy (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is a strong consensus to keep this article. I agree with the nominator that the overall tone is quite negative; however, it is sufficiently sourced that the well-placed WP:BLP concerns do not require deletion. Still, further editing for tone appears to be warranted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For an article on a living person, this has to be one of the most negative I've ever seen. It has a number of problems: i) For a negative BLP, its sourcing (foreign language) isn't great; ii) it has little biographical information, but rather centers around two negative events; iii) it drags otherwise-not-notable people in by namechecking them in his 'misdeeds'; and iv) an individual close to the subject requests its deletion. I propose we do just that. Daniel (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of general notability. This article is supposed to be about a "faction", whatever that means in this context, and a breakaway movement from what is already a very minor political party in the UK. As an unregistered obscure political movement, I can't see this page having any future on Wikipedia. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Dissident Congress has indisputably existed as a legally separate entity from the Populist Party when it was registered as a business in the United Kingdom in 2005. The Populist Party only registered Dissident Congress as one of their party descriptions in 2006 after legislation changed to enable political parties to register party descriptions. The ability of a political party to legally use the name of an already registered business as a party description is best described as a flaw in the legislation. Therefore it is unjustified to say that this Dissident Congress is a breakaway faction from the Populist Party as it has never legally been part of the Populist Party to start with.
Mitcheldean (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago this software was at AfD and no consensus was the answer. It has not improved in the intervening two years. It isn't notable, doesn't make a claim to be notable. It has no references. There are a handful of external links to reviews, most of which are on user submitted sites or copies of PR. If the list of features was cut, there is no unique information to merge anywhere else. Wikipedia is not a software directory, and Wikipedia is not here to promote products uncovered by mainstream sources. Miami33139 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Clint Eastwood#Relationships and family. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NN, child of two celebrities, has had two small roles in films directed or produced by her father. Ckessler (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable actor. Played role of "John Lindsay" in six episodes of coronation street, and other minor TV roles. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Editorial actions (move, merge, redirect, etc.) may be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whole page goes against WP:TRIV. Most of the trivia is uncited and no effort has been made to address this issue. magnius (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I know that this article was listed on AFD not too long ago. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 24 for an explanation of why it is now being re-listed.
Fundamentally, the problem with this article is that it is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH, not to mention WP:NPOV. For the most part, the sources are not talking about "Soviet-run peace movements in the West", the ostensible subject of the article. Instead, they discuss cases where the Soviet Union is believed to have provided funding and/or exercised undue influence in various Western peace organizations. The 1983 Time article, for instance, specifies that the groups in question "would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source." Other sources simply are not reliable; for instance, one is a book from Regnery Publishing, a far-right publishing house that is best known for the release of fringe literature (e.g. Unlimited Access, which claims that the Clintons hung crack-pipes on the White House Christmas tree). Regnery does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by our verifiability policy.
The fundamental problem with this article can be best expressed with an analogy. It would not be difficult to find reliable sources discussing contributions received by U.S. Congressmen from various industry groups. It would also not be difficult to find reliable sources expressing concern that corporations have too much influence on the U.S. political process. But if someone took all this together and made an article called Corporate-owned Congressmen in the United States, it would be rapidly deleted as an example of improper synthesis and POV-pushing. This is essentially the same thing, and should be deleted for the same reason.
Note that this issue has been discussed on the Eastern European mailing list. Canvassing happened during the last AFD and is likely to happen again. The closer should take this into account. *** Crotalus *** 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This debate has been linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe/Noticeboard.
Delete The article cites Soviet defectors Lunev and Kalugin's statements on the KGB's funding of campaigns and running of conferences, but they are vague. The best of a clutch of bad sources is Frederick Staar, who had access to FBI reports to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Despite their access to key documents, these authorities do not name any major peace organisation that was run by the Soviet Union. US intelligence sources are also cited; they mention the total sum that is supposed to have been put into western peace movements by the Soviets but they do not name a single organisation either.
Some of the major peace organisations in the Cold War were the National Coordinating Committee to End the War in Vietnam, National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, Students for a Democratic Society (1960 organization), the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, Washington Peace Center, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, European Nuclear Disarmament, War Resisters International and the British Council for Peace in Vietnam. If they were run by the Soviet Union, why has no-one named them?
Three named organisations are said to have been funded by the Soviet Union: the World Peace Council, which was well-known as a Soviet-led organisation, and the virtually unknown Christian Peace Conference and International Institute for Peace.
This imprecision and lack of specificity in the sources, and the notable absence of any reference to any major organisation, makes them questionable. They do not provide a good enough basis for an encyclopaedia article, especially on a topic that is bound to be tainted by disinformation and black propaganda.
It is inherently unlikely that the Soviet Union could have run any western peace organisations, given what we know of them. Most were left leaning, but many of the leftists in them were New Left, Trotskyist or anarchist. They were fiercely anti-Russian and as such were hated by the Communist Party. It is doubtful that the KGB could have had any influence on them. The editors who have constructed this article seem to be unaware of such differences on the left.
Indeed, they seem to be unfamiliar with the history of western peace movements altogether. I had a lengthy exchange with Piotr on the question of Soviet influence on pre-war peace organisations in the UK, which he insisted he had evidence of. Despite my repeated questions, he could not name a single such organisation. If he knew anything about the subject he would know that the major organisation of the period, the Peace Pledge Union was, far from being run by the Soviet Union, a notorious apologist for Nazi Germany!
The one proven attempt at Soviet influence on a peace organisation was a dismal failure. Vic Allen, a Stasi spy, was a delegate to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's governing council and stood against Joan Ruddock for the chairmanship. His Stalinist rants were treated with ridicule on the council and he gained few votes.
The article includes a claim by Sergei Tretyakov that the Nuclear winter hypothesis originated in two articles faked by the KGB and then disseminated by them in the west. The claim is WP:Fringe. This is discussed at Nuclear Winter and Georgy Golitsyn, where it transpires that the alleged articles cannot be identified, that Tretyakov gets the chronology wrong and that there was friendly co-operation between US and Russian atmospheric scientists on the research that led up to Nuclear Winter. Golitsyn, an internationally respected scientist, was the originator of the theory in Russia. This casts doubt on Tretyakov's claims. User:Martintg and User:Biophys, two editors on the secret mailing list, promoted Tretyakov on the Nuclear Winter and Golitsyn talk pages and in this article. To that extent, the Nuclear Winter section in "Soviet-run peace movements" is a POV fork
If there is little evidence of Soviet influence, if it is inherently unlikely and if there are so few reliable sources, how did this article ever come to be written? Since the Second World War conservative ideologues (e.g. Julian Lewis and Vladimir Bukovsky) have presented the peace movement as a Russian tool. I suggest that this article was written to promote a conservative, anti-Russian and anti-peace movement POV.
The POV of several of the editors is revealed in the way they misquote their sources. Whether the misquotation is deliberate, or simply sloppy, it is impossible to say. For example, Staar says that some bodies were "closely associated" with the World Peace Council. This, in the article, was turned into "Soviet-run peace movements" being "supervised" by the WPC, a very different thing. Staar says that the Soviet Union sent delegates to international peace conferences. This was turned into the conferences being "affiliated " with communist front organisations, when Staar never suggested any such thing. (See this revision.) Marshall46 (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This entire page is pure trivia and goes against WP:TRIV. It would take a substantial rewrite to make this remotely encylopedic, and even then I don't see that it serves any purpose. magnius (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Editors disagree about whether this person's media impact is sufficient for notability. Sandstein 06:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not been established from WP:RS per WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Editors are forced to WP:OR and use of primary sources to find even the most basic information about the subject. Although subject has been quoted by several (mostly) fringe internet websites for his iconoclastic views on vaccination, aspartame, MSG etc., no independent, reliable sources have been found about the subject himself. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TParis00ap has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding ((subst:Cookie)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAM Appears to be part of "viral marketing" campaign for movie. Movie is from unknown studio, not yet released, not in IMDB, not notable, and may not even exist. Only refs are to promotional site for film. John Nagle (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy deletion for an article about a new band; asserts some importance but still doesn't seem to meet wp:MUSIC. Tikiwont (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources were not written by the band. The articles that were written have all been credited to writers - NOT anyone in the band. They are popular publication the Northeastern Florida market. Tom02lithium (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further review of WP:BAND finds that this article meets two criteria (only one needed). "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
The articles were not written by the band themselves, and there are printed versions of the articles that are disseminated throughout northeast Florida.
This articles ALSO meets the criteria of this:
"7. # Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."
This band has become one of the most popular (if not THE most popular) original band in Jacksonville, a city with rich musical history (Lynyrd Skynrd, Molly Hatchet, Limp Bizkit, Shinedown, Cold, Red Jumpsuit Apparatus). The independent articles demonstrate this fact.Tom02lithium (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability Philip Trueman (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, WorldCat indicates subject's works in numerous libraries (at first glance at least). This meets WP:PROF #1 criterion.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This program does not assert notability. TTN (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This contested PROD is not notable, makes no claim to notability, and a search for references does not show significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is delete although if consensus, for example at Talk:XDCC, emerges in favor of Tothwolf's merge proposal, consensus here is not explicitely against doing so. SoWhy 11:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This contested prod is not notable, makes no claim to notability, and a search for references does not show any significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, after the rewrite, consensus has moved to keep. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 23:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a redo of Predator fish, and was moved to this title during its recent AfD (just scroll down to the bottom of this page) in which the result was delete. I attempted to place a db-repost tag on this clear attempt to circumvent consensus, and it was removed. I tried a redirect to Fish, and was reverted. Here's the deletion rational; all fish are predators at some stage of their life cycle. This title is as inappropriate as "predatory snake" or "herbivorous deer". Abductive (reasoning) 17:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People: The article was renamed during the prior AFD discussion. This is perfectly fine to do, and something that we even made the AFD notice deliberately safe against. It's the same article as before. Nja247 made a common closing administrator's mistake of deleting the redirect instead of the article where it now was. (There are closing administrator scripts that cause this mistake to occur, and this problem has been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion.) Xe has undeleted the redirect and favours the continuation of this AFD discussion. I've let all of the prior AFD discussion participants know of this discussion, so that they can come here and clarify their opinions for themselves, too. So no more discussion of whether or not this was wheel warring (It wasn't.) or underhanded (It wasn't.), and focus on the article at hand and how our policies and guidelines apply to it, please. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
general readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy NN autobio. A single Gnews archive hit, nor can I find any other WP:RS establishing notability. Fails WP:BIO. Tim Song (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism; sources do not mention the topic directly, making this original research. GlassCobra 17:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Boo Radley Paradigm" is a media studies theoretical construct and of use to students of the mass media as a term to describe a phenomenon common on TV all around the world. It is possibly a neologism, but whether or not it is non-notable is dependant on many factors and depends upon how notability is accounted for. The theoretical basis for the neologism is accurate and up to date, and will become common usage in time as others use it. The previous deletion of the article was done due to copyright issues whilst Abecedare agrtees this is no longer an issue. Notablity was accepted for the previous entry. I have entered the term as a neutral. StuCarter —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuCarter (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC) — StuCarter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WngLdr34 - I have stated on another discussion page that it may be advisable to re-title the page as this clearly is a neologism. I do believe it highlights something about Mass Media and reality TV that is not dealt with anywhere else and that coining a term for it is an appropriate thing to do or we are left with a burdensome and over-wordy explanation everytime we wish to refer to the concept.
Dennis the Tiger - The term is currently in use though not as yet in physical print. The UK’s Media Magazine currently has an article on the subject under review.
Phil – This term of "schadenfreude" (satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune) is certainly very relevant but it is not at all the same thing as the Boo Radley Paradigm. There has always been "schadenfreude" as part of popular entertainment but the Boo Radley concept is about “reality TV” and especially the “hyper-reality” achieved by media producers exploiting vulnerable people. It is the financial gains and hegemonic concepts behind the use of this very particular "schadenfreude" in terms of the Uses and Gratifications theory that is being developed and no other term has been created to cover this particular arena. It is related to Media studies in particular.
Robofish - The term is referenced to a website so it has been used outside of Wikipedia.
At the end of the day the article may well be inappropriate since new thought is obviously not what Wikipedia is about and it is true to say the term may well fall out of ‘popular’ (if admittedly fairly limited) usage and not be picked up by academia and the popular press. It was originally put on by the author of the term as a way of sharing the idea but was removed since it appeared on his website. I re-presented the idea as a friend and colleague who teaches this term to students and thought others interested in the media may benefit from its inclusion. All the best, Stuart —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuCarter (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:HEY and the withdraw of the nomination. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an ad for a variety of coffee bean; unsourced and has a long history of spamming, etc. but want full input from the community Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A declined speedy, even though nothing has changed from the first AfD - he still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-Guys... look i'm not an intelligent guy, i dont know what the protocol here is and I don't know how to type the way you guys have.
But please... Aaron Mooy, regardless of what stipulations and regulations you guys have tried to set in the past, is worthy of having a Wikipedia article about him. He is a member of the Liverpool FC squad, and is an international player for Australia's U20 side.
I don't know how to read this WP:Athlete guideline you have, but surely you can use common sense in this situation and realise he's worthy of having an article? This is not some indulgent thing, he's represented his country, surely that's enough in it's own right? Otherwise if this article gets deleted, I'm sure thousands more must be too... so please be reasonable with regard to this article. Thanks =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbane Man (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Check out this video on youtube, uploaded very recently. First guy you see is Aaron Mooy playing for his country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=UKErEb1QoWE
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisbane Man (talk • contribs) 02:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate information. I fail to see how lacking lyrics is a defining criterion for a theme song; that would include 99.9% of game show theme music, for one. See previous VFD from 2005 here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep - it's a unique resource that could be used and could be a good exercise for example in creative writing to write your own lyrics to one. Seems worth a page to me. Anrawel (second ever Wikipedia comment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.76.45 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article remains entirely unsourced, so WP:V applies. The concept as outlined by Carcaroth is probably encyclopedic, and (as has been noted) is touched upon in various articles, but nobody has found reliable sources suggesting it has been referred to by this term, or indeed any sources supporting the current article's contents. Sandstein 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced hoax... was prodded, prod was seconded, prod expired, creator removed prod without explaination or work... I could find nothing to verify this article... Adolphus79 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "shield mate" does seem a bit wrong-headed, but the non-sexual concept is certainly genuine (and the sexual concept as well, in certain historical contexts, though we have articles for those already, as has been pointed out). The article itself is also confused (as Uncle G has pointed out). What I wanted to comment on here, is the platonic concept of pairs or groups of warriors forming bonds without any sexual connotation, but in a military or fighting context.
The term used here (shield mate) made me initially think it meant "mate" (close friend) in a platonic sense, not a sexual sense. Before reading the article, I thought it might have been hinting at terms that do exist, such as sword brother, blood brother, and shield bearer. Those are paired units. Going beyond pairs, you have groups such as housecarl and the shield wall, where the person on your right-hand side in a shield wall was vital for your protection, hence "right-hand man" (it's in the article). There are also situations in battle where familial ties led to sister-sons defending to the death their mother's brother (unfortunately, the article doesn't explain that yet).
This is all heading towards Anglo-Saxon sources and other ancient warrior society concepts of fighting side-by-side with your sword brother (though the concept is more popular in sword-fantasy novels today), or more prosaically someone who watched your back in a battle just as you watched theirs - literally fighting back-to-back against your enemies. This is the closest I can come to the concept of "shield mate" stripped of its sexual connotations.
As I said, I think the term is "sword brother", but unfortunately, the only sources I could find for this were a review here of The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún, where the reviewer mentions that "Gunnar has unjustly slain his sword-brother" (I have the book, so can dig out the full context if needed). The other source was St Eadweard the Martyr – The Historical King (which needs checking as it may be a non-mainstream view - see last paragraphs of that text), where there is this: "Another word, more widely applicable than þegn, which came to be applied only to noblemen, was gesiþ. This can be understood as companion, but it really means more than that, and also implies the sworn sword-brother of the Heroic Code, which I shall mention particularly in a moment."
There is an entry on wiktionary for gesiþ. For more on this and the fyrd in general, see here. Our material on the fyrd is in our leidang article. But the whole concept of a 'sword brother' seems difficult to pin down. What I'm looking for is the concept of a pair of warriors working together to defend each other in a battle. Is there another term that I'm missing here? And the term "heroic code" (a concept found in many cultures) appears in lots of sources - enough for an article on heroic code? For some reason, the term is only mentioned twice in Wikipedia.
Anyway, apologies for saying very little about the article shield mate, but I was hoping people here might be able to help with sword brother and heroic code. If not, I'll ask at various WikiProjects and the Reference Desk. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The public women of the rare settlements we encountered in our wandering would have been nothing to our numbers, even had their raddled meat been palatable to a man of healthy parts. In horror of such sordid commerce our youths began indifferently to slake one another's few needs in their own clean bodies — a cold convenience that, by comparison, seemed sexless and even pure. Later, some began to justify this sterile process, and swore that friends quivering together in the yielding sand with intimate hot limbs in supreme embrace, found there hidden in the darkness a sensual co-efficient of the mental passion which was welding our souls and spirits in one flaming effort.
The result was merge and redirect to Human sexual behavior#Aspects of human sexual behavior, even though it does seem to be an actual phenomenon, there isn't enough information, or reason, for it to be in an article by itself. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Keep !votes are convincing that this information should not be removed from the encyclopedia although delete !votes correctly point out that it currently lacks significant coverage. As such, consensus is not reach, although Tothwolf's merge proposal should be considered at the appropriate talk pages. Regards SoWhy 12:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was declined as a CSD nomination. This software is not notable, makes no claim to notability, and has no references. A search for references finds links that say it exists, but not coverage. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Yarcanox and Dream Focus both correctly point out that this subject has been the subject of coverage in multiple references, although they are only passing mentions. But they point out that improvement might be possible and the delete !votes are not convincing since they do not address those references at all, only the lack of them, which can be addressed through editing rather deletion. As such, consensus is not reached at this point, although Tothwolf's merge proposal might beworth consideration at the appropriate talk pages. SoWhy 12:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This declined CSD is not notable, makes no claim to be notable, and has no references whatsoever. A reference search shows some URLs that mention it exists. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable software product as evidenced by the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. Contested prod by some anon. JBsupreme (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC) jon banquer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk)
I cannot find significant coverage of this subject in reliable independent sources, therefore it does not meet the notability guidelines. Contested PROD. Chzz ► 14:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be confrontational, but this just isn't fair. The Alias Eclipse article is being inappropriately singled-out for deletion when it contains legitimate information about a notable software product. This is totally arbitrary and hypocritical considering some of the questionable content that seems to be allowed to remain on this site.--Ajerimez (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several of you appear to be blithering idiots. Sorry, but truth is truth.Eclipse was a very well-known high-end image editing program before PhotoShop became famous. It is quite simple to find references on the web to substantiate this, if one has the search skills of a third-grader or better. Here's one which took me all of thirty seconds to find:
http://www.design-engine.com/alias/history.html
Alias Eclipse / Alias|Wavefront Eclipse
Alias bought Full Color Publisher and marketed their SGI Irix-based image retouching program, Eclipse. It used a proxy mode and post render, similar to Live Picture, where the brush strokes are recorded during the interactive editing then rendered at high resolution on the full size image in a post process.
Version 3.0 was the first version released by Contex, a Xyvision company, when Xyvision bought Eclipse from Alias|Wavefront in summer 1997. Barco purchased Xyvision since, and Eclipse had been picked up by Formvision, who reported they plan on porting Eclipse to Windows NT on their web site at www.formvision.de. The site was down when I last checked.
A former A|W staffer writes that there was a version of Eclipse that ran on Sun Solaris. That version was built for Japanese reseller Konica, with a Japanese UI.
If you can't handle single paragraph unbiased descriptions of fairly famous software (Eclipse was the tool of several very well-known photographers in the late 90's) then perhaps you'd better shut down this ridiculous travesty of a so-called encyclopaedia Would any of you deleters happen to understand the meaning of the word "encyclopaedia", by any chance ?
Oh, another thirty seconds brought this up :
http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/software/10454-eclipse-imaging-software.html
Hi Nicolaas,
WOW I didn't think this was still around. I was using version 2 of this in about 1996 on SGI machines. It is excellent for creating comps and warping - better than Photoshop is today!!! Then it was called AliasEclipse owned buy the same company that made a tiny fledgeling application called AliasWavefront (its called Maya now and look where that is)!
Unfortunately for the price and the extra features today i'd have to give my Sterling to Adobe. But I still often work on LivePicture or Barco Creator to use other features.
Bill
yeah, never existed, wasn't important enough for an entry in the omniscient wikipedia, can't find *anything* about it. Bah. Mr Chzz appears to have the intellectual perspicacity of a contented ruminant. Samuel Johnson would have none of this nonsense, certainly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen minutes worth of looking returns these :
http://www.raymond.cc/forum/freebies/13554-eclipse-for-graphic-design-enthusiasts.html
Good thing you aren't a professional researcher, you'd starve. As for relevance, since wikipedia seems to think that "used panties" is of earth-shattering importance, a piece of software that was comparable to PhotoShop before PhotoShop existed, used by several famous artists and cost approximately $2,000 dollars US just *might* be considered significant enough to not delete after your excruciatingly thorough fifteen minute search. Just because *you* don't know something certainly does not mean it is not relevant or important.A short email to herr Herbrich might turn up quite a lot more but hey now ! We wouldn't want to delay this important deletion ! After all, wikipedia's (feeble) reputation is at stake here !
Just came across a couple more. You deleters are truly amazing researchers,you know ? Next time I have an Easter Egg hunt I'm going to invite you all. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)jon banquer[reply]
OK
Could you be a bit more precise about the herbrich.com reference - where does it mention Alias Eclipse? I know that your 3rd reference there mentions that he uses it, but his website doesn't mention this - so this website couldn't be used as a reference, as there is no mention of the software.
the second one is already a reference on the article (did you actually read the article?)
is a forum - so not counted as a reliable site for Wikipedia's purposes
the www.computerwoche.de reference is a good one (I don't know enough to know about the reliability of this website from Wikipedia's point of view), but I'd be quite happy for that to be used as a source for the article Likewise the magnus.de reference is a good source from what I can see.
Bear in mind that most of us are not professional researchers, and never claim to be.
As you are so good at it, and so keen on rescuing the article,
may I suggest that you add text to the article (along with suitable citations including the above), and maybe spend a bit more time finding more references?
I am not totally convinced, but perhaps rather than just being critical about us,
you might actually do some editing on the article and convince us with your obviously superior skills.
I'm assuming that this IP is not your normal editing account, otherwise you have edited on 4 articles (none of them very big edits) that are not connected to this one, and none of which have substantially expanded the article in question.
Go on, impress us all by expanding this article with lots of extra information and sources! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this promotional page. An internet search yields only several hundred hits for this product, none of which can be used as a reliable secondary source for this article. Fails WP:PRODUCT guideline, so it should be merged to the article about the company or deleted (no company article currently exists on WP). Mindmatrix 14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author removed PROD, claiming that he passed WP:ATHLETE by playing for Prestatyn Town. However, the Welsh Premier League is not a fully-pro league as per this list of pro leagues and neither is the Latvian league. -- BigDom 13:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is as notable playrs from Latvia get. If that is the case then If we go into Baltic leagues and delete all players who have only played in their own country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.180.44 (talk • contribs)
*Keep - I suppose you can't expect many 18 year olds achieve the set out athlete notability. This should be enough. 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC).
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self promotional article (original author was the writer) about a non-notable future film... fails WP:CRYSTAL, as well as WP:NFF, WP:V, and WP:COI... Adolphus79 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Journalism. Sandstein 17:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no purpose, references or factual basis. Moreover, if it were brought up to any standard it would merely duplicate Journalism or Journalist. It takes as its apparent raison d'etre the idea that professional journalism is a form of news reporting (which it isn't, generally news reporting is an aspect of journalism, usually professional), that it started in the 20th century (no, more like the 18th century, if not in ancient China), in the United States (no, probably Europe). I think it has been put together without any real knowledge of the topic, and no references are given for any of the assertions made. I can find no articles for "professional tennis", "professional golf", "professional teaching" etc. IMO, this article was a bad idea from the start. ( Bluehotel (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Keeping Up with the Kardashians. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor child of a notable athlete. Disputed PROD. Sunject fails all inclusion criteria. L0b0t (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of previously deleted material) by Gwen Gale. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-norable minor child of notable athlete. PROD removed but subject still fails all inclusion criteria. L0b0t (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced article that though containing reference numbers are just numbers without supporting documentation. Furthermore after trying to find out whether this group exists can not find any evidence at all. Considering it makes reference to an incident in November 2009 may just be a complete hoax. –– Lid(Talk) 13:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Per http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2345780/posts, some caller just coined this on a radio call-in show six days ago, the day before the article was posted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has only received trivial coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The linux.com article indeed is more than non-trivial coverage but unfortunately for the keep !votes, this cannot suffice on its own. As such, there currently is no consensus between those who think notability exists and those who make (somewhat templated) "non notable"-delete !votes. A merge/redirect should be discussed though if further expansion is not possible. Regards SoWhy 08:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software subject that was declined speedy deletion. Miami33139 (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JBsupreme, worse case scenario we should" "[k]eep per WP:IAR as this article clearly is improving the quality of Wikipedia." ;)
However, in all seriousness, I cannot see what is wrong with the review from Linux.com. It provides enough coverage about ERC (three paragraphs of information) to verify the information in the article. Per Tothwolf, I would not object to a merge to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Most of the delete !votes base their reasoning on OR concerns, which is not a valid policy based argument for deletion but for cleanup, something AFD is not for. As shown by Ihcoyc (talk · contribs), this is indeed a topic that can be a sourced to reliable third-party sources, which means that it's possibly encyclopedic (in accordance to WP:LIST). The counter-argument by Uncle G that there is no Proprietary alternatives to free software article is no argument since noone prohibits such an article to be created - if reliable, third-party sources covered this topic. The POV concerns mentioned by Cybercobra should be addressed though and the list might benefit to be renamed and/or reworked. Again though, this is not a reason for deletion. Since none of the delete !votes were based on policy reasons for deletion (but rather cleanup or discussion), consensus is to keep. Regards SoWhy 12:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced and is original research as it is designed. It functions as promotional advocacy for FOSS. Plenty of the examples (in all columns) are poor choices because it is compiled as OR by any editor who wants to add their favorite software into it. Miami33139 (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indications of notability in the article, plus tagged as a COI Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The Real Libs-speak politely 08:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep- passes 5.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 20:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Frankly, I feel that this is a speedy deletion candidate as no notability is asserted, but in any case it lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. This entire category really needs to go save for one or two articles. :-( JBsupreme (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The player appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Contested PROD. Spiderone 07:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Note on the closing time: Keeping this open to compensate the time this was NAC closed is highly unlikely to have yielded a different result and as such, would be a pointless thing to do (spirit of WP:SNOW). The subject has been demonstrated to be of notability and coverage in multiple sources. And while winning awards might not transfer to notability directly, winning many of them and being the most popular specimen of its kind usually does establish notability (together with other sources which are shown to exist). Regards SoWhy 12:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. This software is clearly not notable. Yes, there are three "references" cited, but please do not be fooled. They are all passing mentions of the product about how easily exploited it is. And by passing I mean two sentences a pop with exception to the third "source" which is really just a security bulletin (email) from the Slackware Security Team. [43] Fail, fail, fail. JBsupreme (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On 2 Oct, KoshVorlon closed this as a non-admin closure as speedy keep: "The result was RESULT -- Keep. This is notable." Apparently the close was reverted because speedy keep was not appropriate, but I figured page should reflect this editor's view. (note I previously !voted above, I don't intend this to be seen as a 2nd vote for myself) --Milowent (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a hoax because Google turns up a mere seven hits for "Edmund Moss" and "Indonesia" together -- and none of them show both terms in the same context. Speedy was declined (I used the wrong criterion because at the time I didn't realize it was a hoax), so I brought it here. (And the article says Indonesians don't have birthdays? Wasn't that a clue?) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on not having birthdays - this is a cultural thing. Some Indonesians not having birthdays is well known at the DWP according to my husband. They assign 1/1/year. Indonesia is home to several cultures. My grandmother was Chinese and did not know her real birthday as she forgot the Chinese calendar date which a friend used to work out for her. Sometimes it was in October, sometimes November. Also in Saudi Arabia girls used to not have their births recorded so some may not have known their birthday. We just take it for granted that birthdays are celebrated. Anrawel. No comment on the unreferenced biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.76.45 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raptor Jesus (Result: Delete).
Article has been recreated recently and is a copy of the above article, albeit under a new name. Since the previous AFD was in 2005, I am renominating the article for deletion instead of a G4 speedy delete.
Topic seems not to have reliable sources with regards to the topics popularity, leading me to believe that the topic in not notable. A quick Google search turned no links up that would pass Links normally to be avoided.
(If the result of this discussion is keep, the article should be moved to Raptor Jesus)
G.A.Stalk 04:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I presume you also know about WP:SOCK? G.A.Stalk 20:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 04:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be a complete synthesis of information and lacking in truly reliable sources. I was tempted to tag it CSD as a hoax, but uncertain if that would have been the correct tag. Thus I am sending it to AfD. Basket of Puppies 04:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Any redirect is a matter of editorial consensus. Sandstein 17:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced almost entirely to related (and generally WP:SELFPUB) Unification Church sources. Sole exception is NNDB, which WP:RSN has found to be unreliable. In any case none of these sources contain more than bare mentions (let alone "significant coverage"). ((find)) reveals nothing more than a handful of bare mentions. Recent opinion is that presidency of the Unification Church of the United States does not bestow any substantial notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Hendricks (2nd nomination) & Michael Jenkins (religious leader)#Merge proposal). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No third party sources or demonstration of notability. Did this ever chart? Durova318 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG, with little or no significant coverage. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A poet laureate for a city! But is he notable outside Peterborough? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A pirate radio station with scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Strike the stuff about the MacArthur Foundation Study on Aging and its report, "Successful Aging". They may well be notable enough for their own article but not here. What are we left with? A load of vague peacock terms but very little sound information as to what Masterpiece Living actually is. Their website (which is probably written by the author of this article) is equally vague. In short: spam for a non-notable organisation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization Orange Mike | Talk 01:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably the most significant event for the introduction of vipassana to America occurred when Jack Kornfield and Joseph Goldstein taught summer meditation courses at the Naropa Institute in 1974, at the invitation of the Tibetan teacher Chogyam Trungpa and the Hindu teacher Ram Dass (Richard Alpert). Kornfield and Goldstein's classes proved immensely successful and launched a sixteen-year teaching partnership. For the next two years they traveled around America offering meditation retreats attended predominantly by Americans in their twenties and thirties.
In 1976, Kornfield and Goldstein, together with fellow teachers Sharon Salzberg and Jacqueline Schwartz, bought a former Catholic seminary and boys' school in Barre, Massachusetts. This became a permanent, year-round meditation retreat center called Insight Meditation Society (IMS). IMS quickly became the most active vipassana center in the West, with students coming from all over the United States and Europe to participate in ten-day to three-month retreats throughout the year.
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't have a consensus for deeming most FOSS as notable. No assertion of notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pure Original Research Synthesis essay. Constested prod. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Transwiki to Wikisource. SoWhy 12:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reprint publisher. The only content of this article seems to be the letter itself: this doesn't make an article. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 07:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 07:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a youth baseball camp that does not meet notability. The article appears to be created by somebody related to the camp based on the user name. The camp itself is not yet operating. The only coverage I could find about it were a couple of articles in the local paper. [54], and [55]. This isn't enough to establish this camp as notable. Whpq (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 07:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. Duplicate of Table of nuclides. Attinio (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 07:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ENT. Per previous prod: subject is a model without any distinction except for appearances in music videos. Mbinebri talk ← 14:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 05:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot see that this company is notable. Haakon (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 07:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ENT. Minor model; just a directory entry article, doesn't have the coverage that I could find. Mbinebri talk ← 14:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. To close as delete would not reflect consensus, to close as keep would misrepresent the debate as settled, and I see no agreement over possible merge or redirect targets. While those editors favouring deletion are in the minority, the claims to notability here are nebulous and not decisively convincing. Skomorokh, barbarian 06:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Google search under the Kanji title still is not turning up any reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. Author also appears to be non-notable. Previously deleted at AfD but the article was recreated by a new account which has not edited anything beyond this article. The situation with the article hasn't changed since the previous AfD. —Farix (t | c) 00:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. consensus is delete, the weak improvement doesn't seem theseable Nja247 07:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article describes a religious viewpoint that does not appear to be noteworthy. Outside of a handful of websites, mostly wiki-type reference websites, Integrational Polytheism seems to have little coverage or recognition on academic, media, or other websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediaphile (talk • contribs) 2009/09/18 02:50:32
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 01:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. 0 refs and full of ((fact)) templates. Most hits at Google from social networking sites. PmlineditorTalk 17:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfied and deleted by User:Topbanana. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of an odd one this. This article was previously considered for deletion as part of a mass nomination and was deleted. It was then restored "with permission from deleting admin" (quoted from edit log). This "permission" was obtained here. However I disagree with the deleting admins unileteral overturn as all of the independent sources appear to be small local sources and there is a question over whether these confer notabality - personally I don't think they do. At the very least I'd prefered this to have gone to deletion review to reguague consensus given in my opinion it's not a clear cut case that restoration is appropiate. Given that it's now back in article space I think another AfD is in order to gauge whether consensus is that this article should be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No known musical notability Paul210 (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. Maybe in a few years. Bongomatic 03:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost non-existent article. I foolishly PRODed instead of speedying and the PROD was removed without rationale or attempts to fix. "Predator fish" is not a scientific term and the group does not form an actual taxonomic unit, like "sharks" or "tuna". May qualify as neologism as well. Matt Deres (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (A1/A7). A combination of lack of context and a lack of importance. MuZemike 03:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing article, ostensibly about a man and his daughter who got their picture taken with president Obama. Not notable as a singe event. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. passing mentions in gnews [61]. simply having an IMDB listing does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 07:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This software does not claim to be notable. Existing references are blogs, documentation, and source code sites. Wikipedia is not a software catalog, source code navigator, or how-to site. Miami33139 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 07:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - New (Jan 2009) internet site has no reliable sources establishing notablilty. The "references" for "featured on" links appear to refer to the existence of what looks like probably paid promotion on other blogs, some affiliated with major newspapers, but blogs nonetheless. Need reliable third-party articles about this site to support notability. As is, this appears to be a promotional attempt to drive traffic to the site. Yworo (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]