The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film lacking GHit and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article lacks sources, but was likely on Wikipedia too long for a CSD which has now replaced by an AFD. mechamind90 23:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a rather ordinary building on a college campus. No indication of notability. All sources are primary. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong converse 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another non-notable person. The original creator account is called "dgregovi" even, so it looks like pure, unadulterated vanity :) Later a new account "Drexon5" removed the autobiography tag and made some other changes, but nothing else. If I could be bothered, I'd have someone determine if it's a sockpuppet... but it's probably just a waste of time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not notable. It's like a poster child that nobody actually ever really heard of? Looks like a product of vanity or a case of misplaced ambitions... Standard disclaimer: I am Croatian, just like the subject. And conversely, I don't personally know the subject or anything like that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No notability established other than the fact this his mother was executed for murder. The last AfD ended with a 'No Consensus' after the article creator asked for time to expand and improve the article - here we are over ten months later and said editor hasn't made a single edit to the article since. GiantSnowman 22:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, non notable student project. Wexcan Talk 22:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Students following dream , have a heart ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.255.12 (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Given that there are no cited sources on the page for the content in question, I'm going with a hard redirect (delete, then redirect) over a soft redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. — Scientizzle 20:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that the character would meet the notability, this article does not have a real world coverage and citations. JJ98 (Talk) 10:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep While AfD is not a vote, the question of whether a recent event (in this case December 17) is going to prove to be notable (in other words, whether it falls under WP:NOTNEWS to WP:EVENT) truly is a case where everyone's prediction is an educated guess. In this case, support for a keep is 2-1 that it is likely to survive the test of time, which may or may not prove the case. If this doesn't bear out in the next few months, a renomination will be appropriate. Mandsford 15:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
formerly "Disappearance of Joanna Yeates"
Disappearance (and eventual death) of someone who isn't notable in the slightest, and while the case is tragic it's in no way worth an article; it's passing news, and WP:NOTNEWS pretty much writes that off. ƒox 21:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Note At this time the article was moved from Disappearance of Joanna Yeates to Murder of Joanna Yeates. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a fourth reason. Reported yesterday was the fact that police were investigating a similar crime from the 1970s for possible links. If a connection was established then that would obviously further strengthen the case for a keep. That's all I wanted to say really. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you dominate a conversation by having multiple talk entries and address every other person's opinion, others may see you as attempting to "own" an article or the subject at hand. This is a type of fanboyism and reduces your credibility within the conversation. It is also very annoying and inconsiderate to others.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources that discuss this term; fails WP:N Tassedethe (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable baseball player that has not reached a minor league level higher than Rookie ball. X96lee15 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per Safiel below. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable person WuhWuzDat 20:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unremarkable person, COI autobiography to boot. Safiel (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Blowing Snow Advisory. Brandon (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing lot of "Mashable reported that blah blah blah happened" hits on Gnews, but absolutely nothing that constitutes non-trivial coverage about the site itself — just name dropping it. Only sources are self-references. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable, newly invented "subculture" classification with no sources for the actual existence of the thing described, much less for the notability of the thing described. The article creator has offered no sourcing other than Urban Dictionary [5], which of course is not sufficient, but they removed the prod tag so here we are. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC) — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author of a single gaming book and website. Lots of references to, and praise for, his book is available in a Google search, but I could find little or nothing from reliable sources on a quick scan-through. Google News search on <"don schlesinger" blackjack> since 2004 gets only one hit, and it a mere passing reference. Non-notable. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Nominator now recommends "keep"; see below. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TransporterMan looked for things that documented this person's life and works and came up empty handed. The article doesn't cite anything that documents this person's life and works, and was badly written. You haven't pointed to anything that documents this person's life and works. Prove that this isn't all just made up information about a person that whose life and works are not known and publicly and properly recorded and published, by pointing to where this person's life and works have been properly documented and published outwith Wikipedia. That's your only valid counterargument. All of the rest, including every point that you made, is irrelevant. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no vested interest in this particular article. But, most of the articles about people in this field are far better candidates for removal. Should I add them all to the deletion page? If you want to delete a Blackjack article about someone known for his work in the field by everyone in the field, let us delete the articles about the players that have stuck their names in WP first. I would hope that WP is about actual knowledge, not popular knowledge. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/I.htm
http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/D.htm
http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/S.htm#SCORE
http://www.bjrnet.com/member/bjapr/F.htm#Fab4
The “find sources” header of this page has links to news, books and scholar. Who cares about images? TRANSPORTERMAN says refs in news about Schlesinger are rare. But, he didn’t mention the books or scholar links. I tend to think that those are more important. After all, is Augustus Caesar is Google News that often? But, that’s just me.
If you click on the links that he ignored, books and scholar, you will find a very large number of refs. Hardly surprising as Schlesinger in mentioned in nearly every decent book on BJ in the last couple decades. In fact, if you have an extensive library of such books (as many of us do in the field), I would bet that Thorp, Wong and Schlesinger are the top three names in those books, in no certain order. (The fourth most reffed name is well down the list. And, come to think of it, it may be me. Who cares?)
As for the irony, David Eppstein has voted DELETE. But, he also has a personal WP page, and I can’t find “news” links about him either. He would claim that the article should be deleted for lack of resources, when his article has the same lack as stated at the top of the page. Let me go further. David’s article says that he is a professor at UC Irvine. The most famous of all BJ luminaries is Edward O. Thorp, an ex-professor at the same university, well-known for his work in the markets, and a well-known philanthropist. But, Dr. Thorp said about Don Schlesinger “Blackjack Attack is a valuable resource for serious blackjack players. It represents the distilled wisdom of twenty-five years from a master teacher and player." -- Edward O. Thorp.
David, please do not take this as a criticism and I don’t mean this to be personal in any way whatsoever and am not suggesting that your page be deleted. We probably have much in common as, looking at your page, I knew John Carr (one of the first presidents of the ACM, back in the 50s, that you belong to) and I gave a silly lecture at U of P on the subject of Monte Carlo techniques when you were three years old. (I’m getting older as we speak.) Not that I had any idea what I was talking about. Just find it humorous. But, you might check with Thorp about Schlesinger.
I’m not voting on this issue as the fact that I’m the only one here that is in the BJ field would probably be a violation of WP:COI. And, I’ve been told that I don’t understand the rules.:) But, it seems rather strange that people that have no knowledge of the field are voting on the relevance of one of the most respected researchers in the field. The perils of democracy.:)
Incidentally, I find it odd that no one has mentioned this deletion request on any BJ related page. Objective3000 (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Miserably fails WP:BK. He is not a notable author and does not have a notable book. His 55 GHits are pathetically small for a writer, and the people who published his book, "RGE Publishing, Ltd," barely do any better with 86 GHits [7]. In short, he may be "known" to a few people sitting around a table playing cards, but he is not notable in the world at large, which is what WP:BK requires. Qworty (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Okay, now you're getting somewhere. You're halfway there. You're asserting notability, but you're not yet demonstrating it. What you need to do next is show us all of the specific sources so that we can evaluate them. Qworty (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) After that, I will demand that the article be kept. You must assume good faith. I don't have feelings one way or another about the subject matter. I didn't add the article either, and I have work to do too. This is an all-volunteer project. If you believe the article should be saved, then present the documentation that will save it, and it will be saved. If you have 38 quotes with links and/or page numbers, the article will be a slam-dunk KEEP. Hell, five good ones would do the trick. Qworty (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unreferenced list of characters that is mostly redundant to List of The Mortal Instruments characters. Most of what is listed here is trivial, and I tried to redirect it to an article that actually contains information. At the very least this article needs to be moved if it isn't deleted or redirected. Still this is trivial with little to no chance of referencing via independent sources. AniMate 19:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No non-trivial sources found. Google asks if I meant "Cardozo" but that turns up no results at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product. Kelly hi! 18:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers a non-notable criminal. The notability criteria for criminals may be found on WP:PERP: "(1) The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself. (2) The victim is a renowned world figure, or immediate family member of a renowned world figure, including but not limited to politicians or worldwide celebrities... (3) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event." Robert Maday has not received news coverage for a while; the coverage died down a few days after the crime took place. Furthermore, to my knowledge there was no notable victim. Edge3 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to University of South Florida St. Petersburg. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that most university newspapers are not notable enough to have their own articles. Plus, the relevant content is already at University of South Florida St. Petersburg. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as merged. The paragraph in the UOSF article handles it quite adequately. SeaphotoTalk 18:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing worthy of inclusion per WP:AUTHOR. JaGatalk 17:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. "Keep" in the sense of "not delete". There is no consensus about whether this should remain a standalone article or merged elsewhere, but that can be determined via the process described at Help:Merging. Sandstein 10:23, 6 January 2011 (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)) . |
Not-notable Scientologist. Other than being the niece of current church leader, she seems to have a typical bio of someone whose left the religion and spoken against it. Might be worth mentioning in an article about Scientology as an example (although there are dozens of other possibilities) but not notable in her own right. Sources generally record what's she's said not who she is.
We don't need to document every ex-scientologist or critic of Scientology to make some ideological point. Scott Mac 17:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that there isn't an Ex Scn Kids article. If this one does get deleted, we could do one on ESK (we should anyway), move the material about the three founders there and redirect their names to that article.
BTW Scott, I don't see how your claim of "not involved" re the cult holds up given what you have been doing. "Apostate" is a smear used by paid academics to attack critics which you used in reference to Jesse Prince. Is that a violation of BLP in itself? And you created a scn related category. Keith Henson (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My, my. The Jesse Prince link turned red. The page was up for deletion 4 days right after Christmas (Dec 26 to Jan 1 and deleted. I note that none of the people who are interested in the topic had a chance to comment. Isn't that jumping the gun? Can this be challenged? Keith Henson (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. No references and a google search turns up very little: an article in a local paper is the only thing that looks like a RS, and does not on its own satisfy WP:SIGCOV. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. withdrawal by nominator Blurpeace 03:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not pass filmmaker notability guidelines; not sufficient for an unsourced BLP since last year. Blurpeace 16:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear failure of WP:NSONG: "It is their lowest-charting single, peaking at a lowly #174 and has received hardly any rock radio airplay". No signficant independent coverage to assert notability. I42 (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12) of his faculty profile at UTM. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLP about a professor with some publication (incl. one book), but notability seems limited at best. Googling to find his affiliation produced dead links. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the notability of the subject has not been convincingly established. Sandstein 10:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried sticking improvement tags on, they were removed without the needed improvement. So now it's time for a full deletion debate.
I see no indication of notability here. Just being a Freedom Fighter somewhere does not confer notability. The subject is mentioned in the given references, but generally only in lists of such freedom fighters. None of the articles appear to be about the subject himself. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO arguments seem to carry the day here. There is some interest in reconfiguring/retitling this as a different list, but I'm not seeing any consensus on how exactly that should be done or even if it's desirable. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This rather arbitrary criterion fails WP:SALAT. Austen (while a superlative writer) did not immediately and radically revolutionize how women novelists went about their business. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most female novelists notable enough to be included in this list already have their own pages. This list would best be merged with the Jane Austen main page, but probably shouldn't be a stand-alone page. Slayer (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep in some form - agree with comments above regarding the need for better parameters - this list just helped me find an author whose name I couldn't remember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.162.153 (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Until We Have Faces. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear failure of WP:NSONG: a single which is unreleased, uncharted and has no significant independent coverage. (According to the article it is due for release soon, but that alone would not meet inclusion criteria.) Redirect to artist article seems appropriate but author refuses this, leaving delete the only other option. I42 (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP seems to apply. As far as I can tell, this only one guy uses this. Note that there are other "goodness factors" out there, but Laithwaite's article is from 2009, so it's doubtful that the other goodness factors" are related. Perhaps the article just needs a complete rewrite rather than deletion, so I'm launching the debate here. Leaning towards delete for now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nominator has voted keep, no outstanding delete opinions. Courcelles 01:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this person is notable enough to warrant an article. I cannot find any information about him (in English, I do not read Vietnamese) on the internet. It seems as if it was written by someone who knew him personally as there is lots of emotive language in the article. Also, it has not been improved for some time, so in my opinion should be deleted. Andy4226uk (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. Has been userfied. AD 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely redundant to List of bus routes in Derbyshire, but the creator keeps on reverting the redirect. AD 14:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I have to admire the honesty of the one "keep" !voter for saying "yea it's not notable but keep it anyway per IAR". If somebody were to make a good logical argument for keeping an article that otherwise failed the relevant guideline(s) and it received some support then it should be given some weight but not for a BLP, sorry. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Verification that the current Canadian Soccer League is not fully professional is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Top level leagues which are not fully professional. The article subject does not qualify under WikiProject Football's guidelines for subject specific notability, and he does not qualify otherwise. Mandsford 00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Verification that the current Canadian Soccer League is not fully professional is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Top level leagues which are not fully professional. The article subject does not qualify under WikiProject Football's guidelines for subject specific notability, and he does not qualify otherwise. Mandsford 00:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Verification that the current Canadian Soccer League is not fully professional is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Top level leagues which are not fully professional. The article subject does not qualify under WikiProject Football's guidelines for subject specific notability, and he does not qualify otherwise. Mandsford 00:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Mandsford 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete -- by a growing consensus -- as violating WP:ALLEGED and WP:FORK. No opinion on the merits of the allegations. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to nominate an article for deletion that it looks like someone has put a good bit of work into, but this article just does not seem to be on an encyclopedic topic. Even the title of the article is a violation of the MOS guideline WP:ALLEGED--who has asserted that Tablighi Jamaat is connected to terrorism? The article doesn't say. There is one reference, an article in the Middle Eastern Quarterly, that does indeed make such an assertion, but one reference from what our Wiki article on MEQ calls "a publication of an American conservative think tank" will not a neutral article on "Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism" make. The long list at the end of the article of "Terrorist suspects alleged to have links to Tablighi Jamaat" is WP:SYNTH. Tablighi Jamaat is a large movement; of course it will have some members who are convicted of crimes. Should we have an article on, say, "Anglicanism and allegations of drug-dealing," containing a list of all of the people who have ever belonged to an Anglican church and later been convicted of drug-dealing? I think this article should be deleted, since it's essentially a negative POV-fork of the main article on the movement. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are establishing a clear pattern by reviewing these sources. Mainstream sources do not report allegations, of complicity or duplicity in terrorism, on the part of TJ. Apparently some neo-conservative organizations do, and some partisan and/or less well known, perhaps less rigorously reviewed organizations have publicized those more serious allegations, but those sources are not usable according to Wikipedia content policies. If the more serious allegations were supported with evidence, this evidence would be in the top tier mainstream news outlets and peer reviewed academic sources. I am assuming no one alleges a conspiracy by academics and media outlets to suppress evidence in this matter.
In addition, many in the mainstream are suggesting organizations such as TJ serve America's national security interests by channeling the lost and dispossessed into nonviolent, apolitical organizations.
No number of additional mainstream sources which do not mention the more serious allegations will prove the more serious allegations. No number of non-mainstream, non-peer reviewed or partisan sources will prove the more serious allegations. Original research, non-NPOV sources and non-verifiable material are not allowed in Wikipedia articles - especially when dealing with subjects as controversial as this.
We are not voting on whether we should change Wikipedia's core content policies.
Aquib (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had major issues ever since it first appeared, and they have never been addresses. Fundamentally, it is simply a statement of the obvious (mobile number portability is portability of mobile numbers, well, duh) and adds a pile of original research from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Chiropractor and "Natural Hygiene" guru. Only main claim to notability is an unsourced assertion that he was once ordained as a Knignt of Malta. A google search doesn't turn up much on Dr. Bass besides his own website and references thereto, no articles from reliable sources. Zachlipton (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotional page written by the subject. All the references and external links are to self-published blogs and web sites and vague mentions of the subject on obscure Arabic language web sites and blogs. The ar.Wiki article used as a reference has been deleted FOUR times and remains deleted. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Kudpung (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I write and read Arabic and I check all links its OK and she is a famous person in Egypt and have a new theory in communication she also a philosopher, And they delete an Arabic page after many months only fore she is alive person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.131.87.137 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that `s right . one of Arabic wiki editors (Mr Obayd) send me an email to tell me that, sorry we can not accept your bibliography until 50 years after your death!(Ghada abdel moneim (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forecast film, yet to be demonstrably notable and unlikely to be verifiable as notable in the near future as it has not started shooting, per WP:NFF. PROD quickly removed so raising for wider discussion. I note that this article was deleted 3 years ago for the same reasons. Fæ (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) are candiditates for deletion.
WP:BIO The article fails the basic tenants of WP:BIO as the subject of this article has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, nor has been nominated for one several times. The subject of this article has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her specific field.
It is claimed that she is a media personality, but the only verifiable links provided suggest she is a newspaper reporter.The articles that are referenced were written about other people by her, not about her. The link provided at (http://www.vegafm.com.au/vega953) is not functional.
As a journalist, she doesn't meet any of the criteria required of Creative professionals. Ie, she is not a particularly well known or well respected journalist, or regarded widely by her peers. She is not known for originating a significnant new concept, theory or technique. Neither has she created a significant or well known work that has been the subject of a book, feature length film, or reviews.Her work has most definately not become a significant monument, been part of a signifianct exhibition, won significant cirtical attention, or is represented within the permanent collections of museums. Nor does she meet any of the criteria required for entertainers.She has had no significant roles in film or television. She has no large fan base. Nor has she mafe a unique, prolific or innovative contrubution to her field.
It is suggested in this article that she is notable because she is the partner of News Limited Chief Executive, John Hartigan. However, Relationships do not confer notability. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED#Notability_is_inherited)
WP:N It may be suggested that she is nonetheless notable, despite this. WP:N requires verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability.
The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
The evidence provided through links to her page do not show that she has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. The articles referenced were, in the main, written by her and were published in the herald sun. This is clearly self promotion, and is not objective evidence supporting a claim of notability. The link provided at (http://www.vegafm.com.au/vega953) is not functional.
WP:SELFPUB Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—
The material as used in this article violate clauses 1 and 5. Most of the references used in the article were written by the subject and as such, the article is primairliy based on these sources. Furthermore, the article is prima facie self serving.
WP:SOAP Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.As such, content hosted on wikipedia is not for Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Given the nature of this article, and the fact that most of the references are written by the subject of the article, it is clear that it is a tool for self pormotion, and that WP:SOAPS has been violated.
Conclusion Given that WP:BIO, WP:N , WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOAPS have been vilated in this instance, I argue that it is in the interests of wikipedia to delete this page. JusticeSonic (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— JusticeSonic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, looks like spam. Darxus (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As with the Fictional history of Wolverine article, this article is nothing more than plot summaries presented in an in-universe style and thus violates WP:IN-U and WP:PLOT. Spider-Man’s history certainly is notable but this doesn’t do it justice as it doesn’t show the creative processes that went into developing the character and his universe. LittleJerry (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -There is no question this page needs to be trimmed and refocused; however, similar to the precidence set in FCB of GG there is standing precidence for fictional bios of Superman, Batman, Dick Grayson, Wonder Woman... The short is while not all characters merit such a large fork of content (like Norman Osborn), I would believe Spider-Man to be first tier character that would require such a page. A character that appears in nearly 6-10 books a month for the past few years produces much content, and to re-focus the article as a publication history; aligned with aformentioned Fictional character biography of ... (all which may carry a different name, but are still looking and quacking like ducks), would be a better use of the content than a simple delete. There are several 2ndary sources and it has been re-editted within the past year, showing work has been done on the page to further align content. Simply precidence is null in this circumstance, and concerns of content seems to be trending for the better. -Sharp962 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hockey Player who does not meet the HOCKEY requirements for Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. USA1168 (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close - Nomination "withdrawld", no votes to delete, non-admin closure.
This article has no sources, seems to be OR or something, and just sticks a couple topics together that are loosely related. Empire3131 (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Ghits is all promo material. GNews has nothing. GBooks does have listed book. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essay masquerading as article, massive steaming pile of original research WuhWuzDat 02:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the section you mentioned says two of the references are allegorical (suggesting the others are not). If one deleted the text associated with those two references (which ones are they?), and then that statement, would the article be salvageable?
Cheers, Joe S. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ANYBIO; COI; article created to link to original research article Endeology. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources and no claim of notability. Tagged for several months. Prod contested in 2009. I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources. Pnm (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. per SNOW, and also for drama-reduction (see ANI); this is clearly non-notable. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N; original research; COI jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Next, the user Jsfouche addresses the concern of item # 5 which states that "the article is not based primarily on such sources." The article for "Endeology" is primarily based on the "concept" of Endeology, not on its "source". It indeed references to the book titled Endeology: A Discourse on Primordial Forces, but it does not primarily talk about this book. It deals primarily with the "concept" of Endeology. Please recognize these important distinctions. Thank you.
I can go over the text of the article sentence by sentence to prove this point, if necessary. But I believe it's already quite evident. Thank you.
The article is primarily based on the subject of the article, this being the concept of Endeology. It would be natural for any article to have sufficient content explaining the main components central to the issue set forth. I don't believe it would be an accurate article if the primary content was made up of disconnected material, do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endeology (talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act).
Please note: In compliance with Wikipedia’s Discussion Guidelines, the strikethrough method is only "recommended," not mandatory. In order to conform to Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, any website must follow its own policies. Under the advice of my attorney, I have a legal right to edit my own posts in a manner that I see fit, as long as they do not violate any other discussion rules or guidelines. Thank you. --Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act)--Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act).--Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act).--Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement retracted by author (This edit is in accord with Wikipedia Discussion Guidelines and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act).--Endeology (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any positive suggestions that could help me formulate a strong article, it would be appreciated. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.49.44 (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC) --Endeology (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)--Endeology (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of many juvenile offenders executed in the United States, no real assertion of notability beyond this fact. Kansan (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N; made-up term jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No non-trivial sources found. Only false positives on Google; only sources in article are directory listings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 01:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this page really notable at all? It seems like a promotional page, and most of the refs used seem forced. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find significant coverage for this retailer. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement -- Nz101 - Talk :: Contribs 02:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per WP:AUTHOR. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. seems like a private institute with fancy name but hardly any coverage. note gnews also picks up Thai coverage. [37]. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. This close is based on the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.E.L.P.eR. that I just closed. Even though there are no cited sources on the page for the content in question, because this is a main charater, I'm going with a soft redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. — Scientizzle 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, this article does not have a real world coverage and citations, and does not meet the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 10:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Known mostly for the XSL attack. A redirect seems enough to me. ospalh (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted at AfD in 2008. None of the references cited indicate notability as none of them contain in-depth coverage of this company. I can't locate any other reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the company, to meet our general notability guideline and our guideline for corporations. There were promotional issues behind the last creation and the creator of this article has not edited outside of it. ThemFromSpace 12:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article on a single that never charted. Appears to not be particularly notable. Powers T 13:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly non-notable magazine. I can find no news mentions of the zine, and the web coverage seems to be mainly advertising for itself and a few non-notable mentions. Article created seemingly by the author for promotional purposes. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable magazine. No independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage that I could find. Prod was removed. Dana boomer (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appears to be small regionally-based publication. Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. You will note that the total absence of any interest whatsoever speaks volumes. I've been trying to dump this thing for months. Why is it even being relisted? Montanabw(talk) 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable bookstore, references consist of passing mentions, links which do not mention the subject, and a lecture by the store owner talking about his vocation. WuhWuzDat 14:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of optical character recognition software. Any merging can be done from the history. Sandstein 10:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Content split of List of optical character recognition software that does not reference parent list. No substantive improvement beyond what the parent list has. Hasteur (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Please note that this is a general Wikipedia policy to have separate list for a free open source software. See, for example, List of audio conversion software and List of free audio convertion software (more examples will be addedd here soon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim Leyenson (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does fulfill neither of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER. Article unreferenced, no sources exist on the subject. No way to expand the article beyond a simple credits list. Prime Blue (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Necrophobia. Consensus appears to be that the topic might be notable, but that that the article is an essay and heavy on original synthesis. If someone wishes to attempt an encyclopedic article about death anxiety, there are some resources cited here that can be relied upon. Mandsford 00:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal essay on which works in the field of death anxiety are particularly notable, and why. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable product with no indication of notability. Wcheck (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This and its related articles were declined for speedy deletion and prod, but I have no idea why. There is no content in any of them other than an unsourced timeline. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrocks10 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fan film. Only critical reception is from FanFilms.net —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
its a very well known film with many fans and admirers, with all the hard work spent to creat it, it desearves to have recognition --- Dar, The Beastmaster (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]