The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been created and is being maintained as a substitution for the page Carpenter (disambiguation), which the creator of this list almost completely deleted and replaced with a link to this list! Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite abrasive tactics, I thought the effort was working toward better Wiki articles and ease of use for Wiki patrons. Yes, I get frustrated because Wiki rules CONFLICT with each other. Part of the reason is the setup and flexibility of Wikipedia. Many forget that the rules are guidelines and concensus should be the spirit of Wikipedia. I have a hard time explaining this, so I hope I this is clear.
Please remember that anyone looking up whole or partially named Carpenter related articles on Wikipedia - that do not start with "Carpenter" can not be done except by a list or partial listing allowed on a disambiguation page. If you want patrons to use Wikipedia - make it easier - even with some duplication list/disambig pages - than harder. Casual visitors do not study Wikipedia and all the rules before using it. Those with the surname Carpenter are often interested in those things related to Carpenter or partially named Carpenter. It is part of learning and taking pride in the name Carpenter. Some people do not understand this. See comments at: Talk:List of Carpenter named articles.
Another example: Carpenter House is a disambig page which allows partial listings and violates many disambiguation rules and is more like a list page. See discussion there.
I do not care if you want one disambig page with partial listings or two pages with duplication and partial listings on a list page. I am willing to maintain those list pages, as allowed by WikiProject Lists. And I see no one from the List Administrators ruling on this.
I request that this discussion for deletion be placed on hold until the page in question is reviewed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and if it is appropiate for Wikipedia with input from them. Please note, I have asked for a review here. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hurry? Let the list people have their say. It will take a few days for their input. The page can be merged or deleted later.
I would also state I appreciate your efforts in trying to mediate the partial deletions that were once part of the Carpenter (surname) article. And I also thank • Gene93k (see above) for echoing this discussion on the List page before I listed the related Carpenter list articles on the list page for review. I add no intention of forum shopping but trying to get the conflicts resolved.
And to think this all started over a robot DAB error posting and my honest efforts to resolve that. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. The subject is clearly notable. DrKiernan (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a non-notable subject. This is a family history of a man who "is best known for his first wife" and his notable ancestors, but "being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability." A navigation box credits him as Lord Treasurer of Ireland but as his tenure was apparently unremarkable the article Lord High Treasurer of Ireland is sufficiently descriptive. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most definitely keep. It is blindingly obvious that the subject meets WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN as he was a Duke, a Lord High Treasurer of Ireland and a Lord Lieutenant. Furthermore it's a well-written researched and referenced article that adds value to Wikipedia - in fact, it is exactly the sort of article Wikipedia should include. To suggest its deletion is perverse; what possible justification is there to allege it fails WP:GNG? Nominating for deletion is borderline WP:VAN IMO and the nominator is clearly following some destructive agenda of his/her own Andy F (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A PROD tag was removed without apparently addressing the unresolved issues of notability and reliable sources, which brought me here. An unpublished novel that has no notability, either inherently or as a result of the (unreferenced and unreferenceable) claim of it having been rejected 6,000 times. No reliable sources are provided for the novel itself; the author's biography, apparently self-contributed, was deleted today for lack of notability/reliable sources, and thereby cannot contribute to any speculative notability for the novel. In short, 6001. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. An interesting and wide-ranging discussion, but ultimately there was no meeting of the minds here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list contains totally arbitrary criteria for inclusion (what's so important about 1911 or the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition as a place to find abbreviations?) and appears to be composed of nothing but original research. I can't imagine any third-party sources having ever commenting upon such a grouping of information so the subject matter also fails our notability guidelines. Interesting? Yes, so perhaps a transwiki is in order, but this material is definitely not fit for an encyclopedia article. The relevant policies and guidelines include WP:OR, WP:STAND, WP:V, WP:N, WP:IINFO, and WP:NOT#DIR. ThemFromSpace 08:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Keeps outnumber the Deletes, this is an interesting discussion that can only get better when other than the usual suspects gather.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficiently relevant; unimproved stub; will not materially enhance UVM page to be added to it Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a footballer who has never played professionally and fails WP:GNG Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biggest claim to notability is as mayor of a town with a population of 12,000. Lacks press coverage. Article is essentially an unsourced resume. Mkativerata (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Lincolnite (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]Solana Beach is a General Law City operated by a Council/Manager form of government. The City Council serves as a legislative body and consists of five Council members, one of whom is chosen to act as Mayor for a one-year term on a rotating basis.
The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable, minor public official whose only significant coverage comes from the various obits (the only sources for the entire article) upon his death, and he was unheard of before then. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:N.
Wikipedia is not a memorial nor obituary archive nor a WP:NEWS site, and Young may have had an "interesting" life, but it doesn't make him notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In 1967, however, as he was seeking a second term against fellow Democrat U.S. Representative John R. Rarick, McKeithen fired Young as his aide de camp. D. Dalton Smith of New Orleans was indicted on public bribery charges stemming from reports that Smith offered Young $25,000 to influence Young's decisions in government. After dismissal from the McKeithen staff, Young turned state's evidence. It was Young's testimony before a grand jury that led to Smith's indictment.[1]
There is also an acquittal of Young on another legal matter, but I don't have details of that now.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than a single mention. He is also in Life Magazine article about Jimmy Hoffa. There are other sources that I have not yet been able to pinpoint.
The result was Duplicate nomination. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAP applies. Point of view piece expressing opinion only NtheP (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. ... discospinster talk 21:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal essay, fails WP:NOR and WP:NOT Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of this organization meeting WP:ORG or WP:N. Article was also created by the person who runs the ministry, so there is a big problem with WP:COI and WP:NOTADVERTISING here. I can find nothing about the ministry doing a Google search other than the Wikipedia article and pages operated by the ministry. This topic does not meet the requirements for inclusion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NN person, little content or context, poor sources. delete UtherSRG (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article to be a complete hoax. The title "Vancouver Island Princess" does not appear to exist. References to other Wikipedia pages, while generally invalid, are particularly telling in this case, as the page used as a reference (Jacqueline Agnew) is a blatant hoax, and has been tagged as such (and will probably no longer even exist by the time anyone reading this nomination goes to check!). Author has repeatedly removed the ((prod BLP)) template without providing any references, and then when pressed, provided two references, one to the hoax WP page, and one to a website that indicates someone with this name competed in a high jump competition (where she tied for 7th place). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. on balance, there is no evidence of notability-it would be very different if the publication were actually famous or even highly cited, but they are not even notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable center, part of a walled-garden created by User:Sgaran (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven A. Garan). A Google search gives many hits, but most are to other centers that have similar names. The references given in the article contain several abstracts and minor publications that have not or only a few times been cited. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automated Imaging Microscope System. In the absence of any evidence that this meets WP:N, the article should be deleted. Crusio (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google returns 23,600 results for "Aging Research Centre (ARC)"
The Aging Research Centre created the first world wide web site dedicated to aging research in 1994. The Centre has been an important centre for research and has tried to inform the public on issues that pertain the aging research. The centre was also involved in the development of the first Automated Imaging Microscope System and has been involved with using bioinformatics to better understand the aging process. The centre has been support the publication of many articles pertaining to the aging. The aging research centre was cited or was involved in the following publications:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgaran (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be an established term; at least, I can't find any primary sources for it. JaGatalk 19:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison article that compares a single piece of software, itself barely notable. Pcap ping 18:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROD and renomination. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. All I can find is online chatter about this long delayed project. I cannot find any WP:RS that would allow it to pass WP:N. The previous nomination was closed as keep, no consensus (non-admin closure) I am renominating it as the AfD was up for 2 weeks but generated no discussion. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 18:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This book was published and this is the second time it has been deleted. It was printed and sold at San Diego Comic Con 2006. There are follow up issues coming. I'm told that this page cannot be restored. That's unfortunate and pretty sad. I wonder if this is some random form of deletion of published books or perhaps a suggestion from a competitor. Regardless, I wonder who will be the next deleted comic book. Spider-Man, Superman? Why not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidWilliamRyan (talk • contribs) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Automated tissue image systems. no evidence of actual notability, but redirect per Tim vikers DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable system. A Google search gives 54 hits, several of them WP or its mirrors, none indicating any notability. A PubMed search renders not a single hit. The system seems to have been published originally in the Linux Journal, not a usual venue for developments in the life sciences. This article is part of a walled-garden created by User:Sgaran, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven A. Garan. In the absence of any evidence that this meets WP:N, the article should be deleted. --Crusio (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editors of the journals listed above all agree that the discoveries that resulted in the work of the Automated Imaging Microscope System were important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgaran (talk • contribs)
Steven A. Garan, Aging Research Centre, Automated Imaging Microscope System, Paola S. Timiras
I hope the contributors to wikipedia do not encourage this kind of childish behavior. If Wim Crusio has a disagreement regarding an issue with any of my wikipedia colleagues, I would hope to stand by them should a person like Wim Crusio carry out a similar campaign. What I find utterly reprehensible is Wim Crusio's sudden interest in my co-researcher of ten years Paola S. Timiras. She passed away in September of 2008 and starting on April 29, 2010, his actions in altering her page are clearly an act driven not my any scientific motivation, but instead by a malicious desire for revenge.
Steven A. Garan
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. JaGatalk 18:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to meet general notability guidelines and notability guidelines for businesses and organizations dissolvetalk 18:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Largely unreferenced article whose author is also the subject of the article; does not appear to meet Notability standards either for politicians or musicians (there was previously a list of albums Ryan McReynolds has written, visible in the earlier diffs of the article). I have been watching this article for a couple of weeks and communicating with the author to let him know what he needs to do. At first I believed he was going to be able to come up with sources that would establish notability, but I realized a couple of days ago that he has been removing the notability tag, and that he likely does not have anything else he can add. —Soap— 17:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a historical novel by an Australian writer. It tells of a fictional conspiracy surrounding the shoot-down of Korean Air Lines Flight 007. It has not received any significant reviews that we can find, though the Australian Broadcasting Corporation did publish an article about it.[6] The author of the article, user:Bert Schlossberg, is essentially a single purpose editor with a website devoted to the KAL 007 crash. The book does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Will Beback talk 17:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography of non-notable researcher, who has created a walled garden (including Automated Imaging Microscope System and Aging Research Centre, which I will propose for AfD separately). The article contains several claims to notability. 1/ Research ("leading scientist") and publications. Several of the listed publications are abstracts. The Web of Science list 14, if the search is done on "Garan S*" this increases to 16. Total citations 8, h-index=2. 2/ Major role in the invention of the Automated Imaging Microscope System. The claim of a "major role" is not sourced and, in addition, there is no indication at all that this system itself is notable. 3/ Director of the Aging Research Centre. Again, no indication whatsoever that this Centre is notable. Note that on the homepage of this Centre, the name of Garan is linked to the current WP article. 4/ The claim to have coined the word "Phenomics". In the article that he created on this subject, it is claimed that this word was coined in 1996, but no source for this is given. In this autobiography, 2003 is given, but the word was already used before then. Even if this fact can be substantiated, it is doubtful that this single fact would be enough to establish notability. In conclusion, this biography does not meet any of the criteria of WP:Notability (academics), hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2010 (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)) . |
Dear wikipedia colleagues, I would like to update you on a issue that has become disturbing to me. A few days ago Wim Crusio and I had a disagreement over the word "Phenomics" which has been used in many scientific publications and online dictionaries. Wim Crusio has been changing the wiki entry to re-direct it to the word "Phenotype" and I have tried to keep the word as a stand alone term. After his repeated failed attempts to redirect the word to "Phenotype" he has decided to carry out a reprehensible vendetta against myself, my work and my co-researcher who passed away in 2008. As you can see by Wim Crusio's edit history on the following items, he started to delete and alter the following items, on April 29, 2010, which was directly after our disagreement over the word "Phenomics" :
Steven A. Garan, Aging Research Centre, Automated Imaging Microscope System, Paola S. Timiras
I hope the contributors to wikipedia do not encourage this kind of childish behavior. If Wim Crusio has a disagreement regarding an issue with any of my wikipedia colleagues, I would hope to stand by them should a person like Wim Crusio carry out a similar campaign. What I find utterly reprehensible is Wim Crusio's sudden interest in my co-researcher of ten years Paola S. Timiras. She passed away in September of 2008 and starting on April 29, 2010, his actions in altering her page are clearly an act driven not my any scientific motivation, but instead by a malicious desire for revenge.
Steven A. Garan
Sgaran (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization, suspected COI issues. Salih (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non-notable company, article by COI SPA. All sources are either self-published or does not mention the company, and I have been unable to find anything beyond incidental mentions. Haakon (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. This is basically a PR page for a very minor company. Angryapathy (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article on an mathematician that apparently fails WP:PROF, see discussion at WT:WPM. It was deprodded by an IP without any commentary or improvement. Pcap ping 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This book is the first book published by the Hult International Business School Press - Hult was ranked as the 23rd best business school in North America by the Economist Magazine - see: http://hult.edu/mba-program/our-program/rankings
Hult Press will be releasing additional books and case studies including work done as part of the Global Case Challenge with OLPC in partnership with the NGO's partners. --Innoventing (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made some changes to reflect above comments. More articles are being written about the book since the launch event, listing on amazon.com and official release.
Added note about review on InnovationTools.com, the top ranked innovation management portal. --Innoventing (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC) — Innoventing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Hipco Hipco, also called Hip Colloquial, is a Liberian music genre close to Hip Hop. Hipco is Hip hop sung in colloquial, the form of English. Although colloquial English retains a lot of English syntax, it can be a bit daunting at first because it is spoken very fast, many consonants are not pronounced, and a lot of words are borrowed from other local languages. But it has become the language of choice for young rappers. And much like hip Hop, Hipco has grown into it own culture, with its own lifestyle, dance moves and music. Hipco combines traditional rap rhythms with samples of street noise and synthy background loops. Artists record themselves in homemade studios, and producers mix tracks on fifteen year-old software. Since 2000, The sound of Hipco has improved greatly with quality songs being released in and out of Liberia. Hipco, which grew from the crumbing ghettos and slum communities of Monrovia and its environs, has defied the odds to remain the popular music genre in Liberia, and serving as the medium through which rappers speak against societal ills, including injustice and corruption.www.worldhiphopmarket.com/hipco-the-living-art-liberia[reply]
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable author, failing WP:AUTHOR. Also lacks reliable sources andy (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was googling sources to see if this was a Who's Who scam or not. All I could find were press releases or regurgitations of press release. There are some hits in google books[9], but they are all people and companies saying how they received "awards" from this organization. Said awards don't seem to have received coverage outside of the company's own press releases, aka no independent coverage to assert notability. Note the false positives with orgs that have similar names. This organization does not pass WP:ORG because it doesn't have independent third-party sources covering it, there is no way to build a neutral balanced article on this org. Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. No evidence that he meets the requirements in WP:ARTIST such as "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers". Only claim to fame seems to be as one of the founders of a now defunct studio which does not in itself seem to be notable. andy (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Significance is established as founder of Rockwell Gallery which is sited in numerous publications as important London space. http://www.therockwellproject.co.uk/Press.htm according to this WP: ARTIST criteria "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Rudolph Scholl (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)) The articles about the Rockwell Gallery are in major art magazines such at Art Review and in national publications in The Guardian, and the artist and gallery have been reviewed in multiple places. The term "defunct studio" is incorrect. Rockwell as you can see from the articles was a noted gallery space showing high profile artists such as James Jessop and Dan Coombs. (Rudolph Scholl (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus is that the references are sufficient, and I agree: the guideline is significant critical attention, and that is normally proven by reviews, which are present. The argument that there are thousands of others equally notable is opposed to the policy of NOT PAPER. . DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD : No evidence that he meets the requirements in WP:ARTIST such as "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers". Only claim to fame seems to be as one of the founders of a studio which does not in itself seem to be notable Codf1977 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non-notable software product, article by SPA employee of the company. Have not found any significant third-party coverage, fails WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Although the murder of a young person is tragic, there is no reason to have a Wikipedia article on that person if that is the only reason they are considered notable. If the crime itself is notable, then an separate article (with independent sourcing) needs to be created asserting its own notability, and the information in this article can be merged. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Dune universe. Shimeru (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROD declined. Zero references with which to establish notability of this particular subset of in-universe material; the title is awkward and thus an unlikely search phrase; and every incoming link is from the tangled web of purely in-universe cruft that makes up WP's greater Dune coverage. Looking for references, I've found the odd result which could tenuously be considered to cover the subject "language and linguistics in Frank Herbert's Dune",[15][16] but the only one which directly covers any material actually in the present article appears either to be a copyright vio or the source of one (see the paragraph beginning "Herbert’s attention to linguistic detail").[17]
If a merge target which is not likely to remain an abandoned stockpile of fancruft can be found then so be it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Disney XD. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, with no prejudice towards creating a redirect. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. The only evidence about this tv station is that Disney has apparently registered the webdomain associated with it. Considering that large companies often register many domains, to use if they ever decide to actually create the brand (or in this case tv station) connected with it, this is only sufficient to stat some discussions on fora (the only sources outside Wikipedia for this), but this is clearly insufficient for a speculative article. Fram (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#g5. Article was created by and only substantially edited by User:Roman888 and his socks. No prejudice against creation of a new version of the article under an appropriate title with enough sources to demonstrate that the event transcends WP:NOTNEWS. Given that Roman violated copyright in almost every article he created and as a last act under his primary account threatened to continue doing so while hiding his real sources, nothing he produces can be counted safe. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTNEWS Codf1977 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article which you mentioned has been in the news recently in Malaysia in various media outlets, newspapers, internet sites and blog sites. In fact this article is of national interest in Malaysia as compared articles such as Kugan Ananthan or Teoh Beng Hock who have died recently in custody by the police.Monkeybuttgirl23 (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To quote last AFD: "WP:UNDUE, not to mention most of this page has mostly unsourced (and likely false) claims." Also lacking in sources; very short list; synthesis. Last AFD was open for 14 days with only a neutral !vote. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Laura_Bush#Early_life_and_career. This would seem the sensible compromise having read the often reasonable rationales of other !votes. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a collegiate rugby club—and the word club is key here, because rugby is not a varsity sport—and does not cite any independent reliable sources. The article has been tagged for improvement for a year and a half, so the lack of sourcing is indicative that the team does not meet the general notability guidelines. Further, there's no evidence of specific notability for winning a national championship tournament or the like. —C.Fred (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep after improvement. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable except for having been an ex-girlfriend of Charles Bukowski. Hasn't done anything on her own that was covered in the press, apparently. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability per WP:MUSIC Codf1977 (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to establish notability in music (WP:COMPOSER & WP:Notability (people)). The body is about early developments in the selection procedure for Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 and has little biographical information in the way of Zakka. While having two songs in the Greek national final for a major artist by a new, previously unknown songwriter is a very impressive accomplishment, it does not warrant notability for the creation of a separate Wikipedia biography page. Rather a few lines about the songwriter can appropriately be accommodated into the Greece ESC 09 article. Imperatore (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP - Fails WP:GNG and other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was technically no consensus, by which I mean work on the article and relist if desired, as I am about to explain: . The present debate is too contaminated by ethnicity-based arguments, personal accounts and interpersonal conflicts, to be valid. The relevant arguments here are the somewhat dubious nature of the sources, and the SYN in conflating the events of the entire period. They're connected, because thee is no real doubt the individual events occurred--the part of the sourcing which is challenged as inaccurate is the part where some historians , particularly McCarthy, do call it a continuous series of events--and there is some doubt about his status as an unbiased expert. I do not think the article can stand as it is, but a much better case could probably be made for an article for the period from the Russo-Turkish war thru the years after WW I. This is technically a non-consensus close, but it is actually a request that the article be tightened , perhaps as I;ve suggested, that a wider range of sources be used, and then, if it still seems unsatisfactory, another AfD be held with some degree of moderation in the discussion. Emotions have been expressed sufficiently already. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does one begin? At best, this article is a disconnected, frantic compilation of material which purports to speaks of a genocide directed against a one or two groups of people, by varying groups, over a period of about 150 years. Let alone the fact most of the sources used are by Justin McCarthy, a controversial historian and a notable denialist of the Armenian Genocide and not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination, that it is written in a highly POV wording, this article appears to be in violation of a number of Wikipedia rules: WP:OR, WP:Synthesis as well as a possible WP:POINT. The creator of the article has most recently been arguing to insert doubt on the Armenian Genocide article and one can only speculate that this was created to invent a fictional balance between one real event (the genocide of the Armenians) and a loose series of events under the heading of a word that carries so much sentiment (genocide).
This is just a hodgepodge collection of material which no respected scholar has ever described under so singular a term as genocide. That atrocities occur in war is undeniable, but this really pushing it. That Muslims were forced to leave after these wars took place is true but that still does not even come close to meeting the definition of genocide and the fact that the creator of this article placed a tag stating that he created this article based on "good faith" is belied by simply reading this article critically. Perhaps the information can be integrated in the actual articles themselves (provided that there is some actual discussion beforehand, given how contentious the material is) but not in a single article like this one. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is that merging the article Persecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims under an overextended section covering the history of 1,5 billion Muslims around the globe wouldn’t hurt however e.g., merging articles such as The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913 or Armenian Genocide or Greek Genocide or Persecution of Serbs etc.etc. under the article Persecution of Christians, which is already compartmentalized into geographical area/historical period sections would be a problem? I do not agree with this view point since it favours one religious/ethnic group and not the other. Hittit (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly! SYNTH question of yours is the attempt to present the riots, deaths and displacement during war in the war-zone as a conspiracy and genocide against Muslims and Ottomans. OR the way you wanted to know is, for instance "Massacres against Turks and Muslims during the Balkan Wars in the hands of Bulgarians, Greeks and Armenians are described in detail in the 1912 Carnegie Endowment report". First of all the Editor has described it as 3 whole nations and it is a racial/nationalistic accusation. Secondly the nations as a whole are not able to organise massacres, which the Tendentious Editor is trying to show. And thirdly, it is known and obvious to anyone that Armenians (in any form of this word) could not (as they were on the other side of the empire) and did not participate in the Balkan Wars. It is clearly an OR and SYNTH with heavy biased tendentious editing from the editor's (in this case Hittit's) side. You can see the SOAPS clearly and I hope you notice that the article is a collection of information and does not constitute an article as such. Aregakn (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"No. 9. LIEUTENANT R. WADHAM FISHER [an English Volunteer in with Fifth Battalion of the Macedonian Legion]. Lieutenant Fisher explained the circumstances of the massacre which occurred at Dede- Agatch; “On November 19 the lower class Greeks and the soldiers began to pillage the town together. A certain number of the local Turks were undoubtedly killed. These excesses must be explained by the absence of any officers. No. 10. BORIS MONCHEV, [Bulgarian Mayor of Dede-Agatch].This witness confirmed Lieutenant Fisher's account, believed that not more than twenty Turks were killed in the massacre, and insisted that the local Armenian porters (hamels) had taken the chief part in the disturbances". These are just few eye witness accounts, the report goes on and on... Hittit (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you care for, but you either have to care that you are not getting the point or something is wrong with the manner I explain, though I told the samething many times. I am showing you, that the article is created as propaganda (SOAPS) citing the racist/nationalist accusations, with false OR, and false sourcing in this case of "Armenians" participating in Balkan wars and killing Turks and Muslims there. Is the PROPAGANDA (SOAPS) difficult to understand? Should I try to explain it once again in a different way? If not and you got the point of the article is a propaganda, please recall the Wikipedia:Deletion policy that states that articles having "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" which is "What wikipedia is not" where on its turn it is clearly stated that "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise" are Soapboxes which are to BE DELETED as said in Del. Pol.. Aregakn (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MarshallBagramyan, and you might consider to integrate e.g., the Armenian Genocide under Persecution of Christians or Anti-Armenianism? Or are there different standards for persecution? Ottoman Turks and Muslims are less of people therefore an article for their persecution and ethnic cleansing is redundant or needs to be swept aside and merged under a larger indistinguishable mass? This just goes to show that the whole nomination for deletion was not based so much the use of singe words in the topic or article contents, it is the sheer thinking of some that any article discussing the faith of Ottoman Turks and Muslims needs to be made redundant as a matter of personal principle. Hittit (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL, which explains valid grounds for deletion. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing.
- Not done by the nominator
2. Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic. Some articles may have been harmed by vandalism or poor editing. Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered.
- Not done by the nominator
3. If the article is not already tagged to note an existing problem, consider applying a tag, such as "notability", "hoax", "original research", "unencyclopedic", or "advert"; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.
- Not done by the nominator
4. Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged. Uncontested mergers do not require an AfD.
- Not done by the nominator
5. Check the "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
- Probably Not done by the nominator
6. Check any interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may provide additional material for translation.
- Probably Not done by the nominator
7. Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
- Not done by the nominator
8. Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and policies on notability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. Related guidelines include "WP:BIO", "WP:COI", "WP:CORP", "WP:MUSIC", "WP:WEB", and, for list articles, "WP:CLN". For a list of policies and guidelines that can be useful in a deletion proposal, see Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates.
- Probably Not done by the nominator
9. When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist.
- Not done by the nominator
10. If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
- Not done by the nominator
11. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion or proposed deletion.
- Probably Not done by the nominator
12. If you expect the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia (perhaps because the article is linked from some visible place outside Wikipedia), or if you notice this happening, you might want to insert the "Not a ballot" template into it.
- Not done by the nominator. Evidence, probable sockpuppet IsmailAhmedov (talk · contribs)
Furthermore none of the other accusations added after the AfD nomination hold any merit since all of them are arguable and should be discussed in the article’s talk page, AfD should not be used as a discussion forum.
P.S. "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion"
- Not done by the nominator
Hittit (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your statement in the form of your vote here, no need to go further and vandalise the article, contribution is welcome lets discuss it in the talk page on how we can expand Hittit (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This were undeleted after an IP wrote "Every playmate deserves to have an article. They may not meet the porn critera, but that's because they aren't porn in the first place. They are an American Icon and part of history itself." Since it was prodded originally, I am sending it over to AfD. I do not believe that the article meets any of the relevant notability guidelines. NW (Talk) 11:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This were undeleted after an IP wrote "Every playmate deserves to have an article. They may not meet the porn critera, but that's because they aren't porn in the first place. They are an American Icon and part of history itself." Since it was prodded originally, I am sending it over to AfD. I do not believe that the article meets any of the relevant notability guidelines. NW (Talk) 11:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a notable aircraft accident. There were no injuries to any of the occupants and the damage was fairly minor; the aircraft was repaired and subsequently flew for a number of years YSSYguy (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company - the only ref's to in the links given are in passing. Codf1977 (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has been sitting there with a ((db-a7)) tag for almost two days, making a mockery of the speedy deletion process. This indicates to me that the article at least is not obviously speediable, therefore I bring it here. The apparent rationale is lack of Notability.
The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 by User:Bwilkins. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"How-to" instructions, unlikely to develop into a successful article. Jminthorne (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Coverage is a bit scant, but the weight of the discussion indicates that it is sufficient for an article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. All of the coverage appears to be trivial and not substantial. The only assertion of notability is that she was related to the U.S. president and that he mentioned her in an autobiographical piece, but that is not sufficient. ALXVA (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an encyclopedia is the place for a list of tour dates and venues. I don't know of anything notable about past tours, and if there is something, it could be mentioned in Tegan and Sara. Klubbit (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, recent organization. Sources do not actually discuss the organization. MBisanz talk 03:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I can find in terms of coverage is a few trivial mentions, such as an XXL article, but nothing one could call significant coverage. Also, no major label deal, etc. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ...Seriously, the Venus de Milo? Shimeru (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? Really? Fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Music-dedicated channels have constant lists of the top 10 videos or top 100 celebrity gaffes or top 20 dead hookers. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice to recreation if sources are discovered. Shimeru (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see where the wp:notability comes from here. Can't find anything in google books about this software. All references in the article are wp:primary or automatically generated package entries. Pcap ping 23:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable local politician. Fails WP:Politician and also fails WP:GNG. Snappy (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enormous DictDef; probably valuable for en: Wiktionary, which has no pages for ajam or ajami, so Transwiki to Wikt & delete from WP. Jerzy•t 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This orphaned article deals with a non-notable band and contains zero references. It is also written in a tone that is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Despite having long been tagged for its many issues, few changes have been made to make it an appropriate encyclopaedic article. Primarily, I can find no evidence of this band being notable. It seems to be an overly-romantic biography of a non-notable band written by one of its members or fans I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Golub
The result was delete. No prejudice to recreation if sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable music group lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be a notable event; no third-party sources and none found. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Week March 25, 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The 7th Dawn. No arguments to keep and no sources after two weeks. Deleting until sources are found, and establishing a redirect to the film as suggested, as a possible search term. If sources are found, the article can be recreated with a hatnote. Shimeru (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Sounds Like Chicken. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the closest thing this band has to a claim to notability is being formed by former members of Sounds Like Chicken and someone who went on to join The Middle East which imo is not enough for wp:music. the band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, having looked on google and factiva. a redirect to the Irish band of the same name made sense to me but was reverted, justified by a member joining another band sourced by myspace. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Sounds Like Chicken. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no real notability shown for this album. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources duffbeerforme (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sounds Like Chicken. No notabililty shown. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no real notability shown for this single, being played on radio doesn't make it notable. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources duffbeerforme (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sounds Like Chicken. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
limited edition (700 copies) independent release lacking coverage in independent reliable sources duffbeerforme (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating from the same band another independent ep release lacking coverage in independent reliable sources.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No independent coverage in reliable sources that I can find. There's a saxophonist and several other people by the same name that show up in searches, though. The article originates in dewiki, but contains no sources there either. Jafeluv (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The is general agreement that the article is of poor quality at present, but there is no consensus to delete it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An essay not an article so OR. No indication of topic's notability as it's not clear where the topic comes from, so a neologism. Prodded but Prod tag removed without explanation. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This guy has received a very minor award (2008 Domainers Choice Award) and has some scant commentary in the blogosphere and press releases, but he lack the significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that is needed to meet WP:N and the reputation needed to meet WP:BIO. ThemFromSpace 03:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)