The result was delete. Tone 21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this author and alternative medicine practitioner fails WP:BIO. This may even be an example of self-promotionalism. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under G5. — ξxplicit 05:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page is apparently being used as a grammatically-incorrect alternate title to avoid the previously-established consensus at the Monsters Inc. 2 redirect that this subject does not warrant an article. It should either be moved to Monsters Inc. 2 if it is agreed that it now qualifies for its own article, or deleted as an implausible typo of the correct spelling. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable, g11 ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article have too many issues to adress. I think that it is better to just delete it, and then afterwards recreate it, when the issues have been adressed. Heymid (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-level academic with a raft of non-significant awards and publications. Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested CSD hoax. Without any sources at all and no web content at all to be found this looks like a giant hoax to me. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Von Aachen's Disease is not a hoax. It isn't a widely publicized disease, but it is, nonetheless, real. There is some literature on it, but I'm not sure if it would be acceptable to cite because the literature is in book form. Mucussummery (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I can provide one main source, it will just take me a few minutes to get it into the proper citation format. It's an article called "A Summery of Doctor Johann von Aachen's Work over the Past 12 Years" published in 1938 by Dr. Strauss. It was originally a German article with a German title, but I only have the English translation.Mucussummery (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strauss, Dietrich A. "A Summery of Doctor Johann von Aachen's Work Over the Past 12 Years." Die Deutschen Medizinischen Zeitschrift 8 Sept. 1938: original pages unknown. Print.
(the information above was taken from a small note before the English translation of the original article)
I also have digital scans of some of the pages from Dr. Von Aachen's journals. Mucussummery (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Akirn (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No references or sources have been added since October 2008. -- φ OnePt618Talk φ 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax, see evidence below, also WP:CSD#G7 author requests deletion (by filing this AfD) - take your choice. We do not need to let this run any longer. JohnCD (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was made before we got in contact with the Bavarian state archives for proof, Karl Franz was only made a count not a Prince.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lichtenberger (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 June 2010
The result was The result was Delete---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a candidate for a nomination in Virgina with a classic case of WP:COI. Only real editors are the people he is paying to promote him by creating this article. Rohedin TALK 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm responding to this correctly, but I hope you do not delete the Bert Mizusawa article. I'm a volunteer trying to help out, and don't know how else to create a wiki page without using the information from the campaign. I'm happy to re-do, but would love some guidance! (I'm new at this!) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Va02GOP (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 21:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unreferenced, speculative WP:OR. Many entries probably added by people who don't know what schizophrenia is. I am only familiar with one of these characters, River Tam, who AFAIK displays nothing even close to schizophrenia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indenting vote of indef-blocked sockpuppeteer. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 01:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repairing a malformed nomination; User:Nineteen Nightmares, the original nominator, had recopied the entire article into this page with a prod template at the top. His reasoning was that subject has done nothing of note, with the exception of having been born into an extremely wealthy banking family, having of course "run" one of the family's many businesses. The rest of the article talks about his time in the army and private family life, with little to no public value. This is strictly a procedural nomination to repair a user error; no vote from me. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record label. Repeated contested CSD A7. GregJackP (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added references from major broadsheets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.203.234.135 (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revised verdict to Delete based upon [[10]]. Most of the keeps, particularly at the end of the discussion, which helped sway the final outcome have been determiend to be either sock or meat puppets of the page founder. In his defense at the SPI investigation, Dmartinaus wrote, It is a stressful position to be in when it's YOUR business reputation on the line (and this Wikipeida site and the editing process pops up regularly on Gogle Alerts), and when YOU are the one being accused of truly astounding falsehoods. Well, the article would have probably been deleted without the puppetry to begin with and if he is worried about his public persona, then leaving an article on Wikipedia which is directly tied to his puppetry/misconduct here will only highlight the unethical behavior he has exhibited. Deleting the article won't remove it from the wikiclones and it won't hide the other stuff that has transpired, but oh well.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Marginal notability, but enough to be kept... plus, the trend seems to be in that direction. While the person who claims to be Don, and I have no reason to doubt him, does not want the article to be deleted, if he changed his mind I would support his desire (after proving his identity) but as he supports keeping it and the consensus supports that as well, I think the result is a clear keep.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local PR figure; good reason to suspect this of being autobiographical (or created at his behest and with his involvement) Orange Mike | Talk 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor4th (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate section copied from a user talk page removed. This discussion is for comments directly relevant to the AfD process only. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leave references as is - Policy dictates a well-referenced article to show notability. Since you are arguing notability issues it would be highly inappropriate for you to remove references. From Notability section "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." I recommend no removals without general agreement of the editors already involved. If you have suggestions, Nightmare, then show how the ref does not specifically involve the subject. References on the book, for example, (with the exception of the Amazon link), appear to be articles about the process of writing the book and interviews of him, not reviews of the book itself, therefore they appropriately support the subject of the article. For heaven's sake, Nightmare, how can anyone write about a person and not write about his company, or a book he has written? You have a very strange sense of what references are intended to do. All of these many references appear to me to be well sourced and to the point.4804BT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - Policy also dictates that controversial edits be discussed on the talk page. As has been stated repeatedly, this article has had extensive discussions on most areas of the article, primarily due to the WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPOV issues. GregJackP (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2010
Austin may be the Texas state capital, and home to the main campus of its state university, but it's still only the fourth-largest city in the state. Now that might not preclude notability if, say, Mr. Martin was active in state politics, even though he is not nor has ever been an elected official. But ... if he were, I'd expect the Dallas, Houston and San Antonio newspapers, or other news outlets, to have mentioned his name in some non-trivial way, and for those non-trivial mentions to be among the sources cited. As Mr. Martin notes above he has been active in local affairs but not state ones. Therefore I don't believe a state-level threshold of notability has been met. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to My Little Pony (TV series). T. Canens (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This My Little Pony episode was originally called "Rescue from Midnight Castle" and was eventually renamed "Firefly's Adventure". Searching separately with these two titles has resulted in the discovery of an insufficient number of sources to demonstrate notability. Neelix (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:ENT. J04n(talk page) 17:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Not news Marcus Qwertius (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin closure) Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable high school choir, contested PROD Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable autobiography; declined speedy; contested prod (although I didn't tag as either). Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 01:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of many authors of a single peer-reviewed article. Subject has not been covered by external media, only the article has, this subject does not meet WP:GNG. Drdisque (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Drip tape. JForget 01:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A how-to guide for a supposed method of foreskin restoration. All foreskin restoration topics are seriously fringe to begin with, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and this article has no reliable sources addressing notability or the correctness of the information presented, though it does have some low-value external links. Prod template was removed by an IP whose other recent edits have not improved the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film that is not on IMDb, contested PROD Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the AFD to the text at the time of closing. It should be noted that the socking block against Inniverse was later reversed, and the suspected relationship to Azviz has been determined not to exist.—Kww(talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete I reviewed most of the links provided by the people calling for keeping this guy. The links fell into one of two categories. First, most of them dealt with the fact that he was the spokesperson/chairman for various presidential candidates. Being a spokesperson, while high profile, does not make one notable. Second, many of the articles dealt with the fact that he is the grandson of a former VP does not make him notable. Again, this is not grounds for keeping.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Person does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, and notability is not inherited from his grandfather. Unsuccessful candidacy for a state office and work in state campaigns for presidential candidates aren't sufficient to establish notability. Relevant Google News hits seem to deal with his unsuccessful run for office or with decisions not to run for other offices. Current position seems to be as a communications officer for a federal agency. Deor (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep The references and links within the article are enough to meet the minimum requirement of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. He worked as the election director for Minnesota for both Gore and Mrs. Clinton, and also made his own (failed) attempt to be elected Secretary of State, and references are shown for all of these facts. But what put it over the top for me was this [16] 2007 reliable and independent source that addressed the subject of Buck Humphrey directly and in detail. That meets WP:GNG and thats a keep. Inniverse (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. obvious consensus/near unanimous for keeping the article JForget 01:52, 12 June 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)) . |
Failing to meet WP:N, WP:CORP Joe routt (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without objections to recreation There are a lot of claims to notability, but not a single reliable source. Looking at the sources provided by the nominator show that this guy did write a popular theme song, but none of the links showed independent notability. None of them were substantial about the subject... well there were a few, but they appear to be wiki-mirrors. If somebody wants to come back and recreate this with viable reliable sources, I would fully support recreation. But without real sources, and those I saw didn't support the claims herein (and letters/interviews with the author are not reliable sources) I have to delete.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This musical composer/performer/director does not seem to meet WP:Notability or WP:NMUSIC. The article's claims to significance center around 3 works. I've included relevent searches here:
No reliable sources found in any of these searches. Sources already in the article are dubious at best. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 14:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little indication that the website meets the WP:GNG as the article on "PRWeb" is clearly just a press release for the website, and I have been unable to find a working link to "carnalpedia". Possible hoax or non-notable website. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 29th April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Deleted multiple times via A7. delete and salt UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith talk 16:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this band. Their only releases are either self-released or on minor labels. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Arnautović is not notable as he never played in a fully-professional league. Matthew_hk tc 10:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was prodded with reason WP:SOURCES. I think that for broader discussion we need AfD procedure instead. There could be also problems with notability. Beagel (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article - I am simply beside myself on this article, and I suppose that I should be putting a little bit more effort into gathering sources, but this is simply getting insane here. I came across this company in a couple of articles about energy production and noticed that there wasn't anything on Wikipedia about the company.... so in the spirit of "anybody can edit" I write up an article about that company and do a quick Google search to get some additional sources and information. The very first thing that happens is that the article gets nominated for speedy deletion when I write the first paragraph.
Seriously, this is simply getting insane and to me is a symptom of how awful and desperate the deletionist have become on this project. As for sources, look up Talk:Fluidic Energy and at least read the articles that are about this company.
What does it take, seriously, to write an article on this wiki anymore? Is the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia that a company must be in the Fortune 500 for notability? If there is a problem with the article.... fix it. I admit, "anybody can edit", but it is much harder to write something than it is to be a critic and assert nothing can be fixed. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A new user has created this article without first checking Giorgos Alkaios. I had nominated the article for speedy deletion. The nom was contested by the author and almost immediately, the speedy del tag was removed by another new account. This continues to be the only edit made by that account till date. I strongly suspect that this is a sock-puppet of the same author.
This article should be deleted as there already is a Giorgos Alkaios article with a complete discography in it. A separate article is not required at this time given the size of the main biographical article. Nilotpal42 09:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pre-season friendly tournament involving Southampton FC and one invited opponent. It has no general notability Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure that this meets CSD:A7, but the article is incomprehensible for it's tech jargon. There are, however, several results returned on a Google search. WackyWace talk to me, people 08:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable subject that fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NOT as a user guide. Nuttah (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep - Non admin close by nominator. Thanks in particular to The Anome - plenty of sources. Springnuts (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Reliable Sources. The sources given are The Register and a non-Peer Reviewed self published paper by the technique's inventor ... hosted by the company who will sell you the software for $1499. There are few google hits, and these normally refer back to the Register article. Springnuts (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would regard the Reg as a reliable source in this particular context: most of their coverage is serious journalism, albeit mixed in with (generally clearly signalled) joke stories and provocations. This does not seem to be either of the latter. [On later review, after discovering the new cites found above: I think this is now a speedy keep, given the cites from multiple verifiable reliable sources. At least four academic papers from independent research groups, the public involement of a major police force, and mainstream tech media coverage, what else is needed?] -- The Anome (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally unsourced unencyclopedic essay/guide, fails WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted (A9) by Graeme Bartlett. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supposed upcoming album from a group that doesn't even have an article on here (well, they did, but it was speedily deleted). Violates WP:CRYSTAL and possibly WP:HOAX, as I can no information for an album of this title being in the making, let alone any of the info listed in the article. (P.S. Both articles appear to have been created by a single-purpose account). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Logitech. JForget 01:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed if and when the 2 suggested merge targets are created. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Even if Death's demos at large were influential in terms of the death metal subgenre, this one isn't. That citation can be in the band's article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. This one provides a few sources, but they only establish the most tenuous notability--this is more polished than their other (non-notable) demos and it secured them a record contract (which is true of many demos and basically the point of their existence). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No sources to establish notability, seems to be a very small and failing retail centre. Few (local) sources found are a long way from establishing notability. Rehevkor ✉ 03:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep on the issue of delete/no-delete. No consensus on the issue of redirecting. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can be regarded as a needless category or a trivial content fork --donnyton (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited through membership of an organisation, let alone alleged membership. There is nothing notable about this person. Mkativerata (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging, redirecting, renaming, or what have you can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Long standing unreferenced tag and a search did not produce anything to support the material. The term itself seems to be notable but as a coordinate system for hyperbolic space unrelated to the "Quadrant model" mentioned in the article. A search on "Quadrant model"+hyberbolic returned 0 hits. I also found a source that uses the term for coordinates that use hyperbolic functions in the same way that polar coordinates use trigonometric functions. These are unrelated to the material in the article. This has a large number of articles that link to it because it's included in a template for orthogonal coordinate (incorrect since the system in the article is not orthogonal). RDBury (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. It seems merging as suggested would be the sensible solution. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions in travel guides and lifestyle magazines are not proof of notability (compare restaurants and bars). William Avery (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other two articles:
(Rovington (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Pleasuredrome article has sufficient citations and in equal number to the other two articles. These articles could all be merged into one.
(Rovington (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The result was keep. No prejudice against a quick renomination if sources aren't found. Perhaps somebody fluent in Danish could help. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Television series which does not meet WP:N. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested proposed deletion. Claritas § 15:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:Notability. Contested PROD, tagged for ((notability)) since 2 May with no addition of references to indicate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Searching Google Scholar, Books and News finds none either. Current references are all written by the developers. Qwfp (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current references are all in established, highly regarded, peer-reviewed scientific publications, not self-published or pay-for-publish. Quoting WP:RELIABLE:
[53] has SSDBM and DASFAA in the Rank 2 group for Databases. SSTD/SSD is a specialized conference for time series and spatial databases, only every other year, but also peer-reviewed and highly regarded in the research community.
The software has been used for visualization in R-Tree, Local Outlier Factor, de:OPTICS (OPTICS algorithm) and I intend to use it for visualization of DBSCAN.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since its creation, this page doesn't seem to have improved itself. It's still unsourced, but has grown to include quite a few redlink (and likely non-notable) pages. —fetch·comms 23:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Open source CRM software to reflect the article's actual content. This isn't an article about open source CRM. It's a list of the software. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Band with no sourced indication of notability in reliable sources outside of having a couple of songs included in video games; the only sources cited here are band webpages, discussion forums and last.fm (none of which even satisfy WP:GNG, let alone WP:NMUSIC). Four different versions of this article have failed AFD in the past (see table, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless Sporadic, An). I'm not really seeing that this version makes a more compelling case for notability — it's actually a poorer article than the second version, though it's marginally better than the first version — but I don't feel comfortable speedying it without a consensus since the content isn't identical enough to the prior versions to call it a straight repost of deleted material, and clearly somebody is really determined to get this topic into Wikipedia no matter what it takes. That said, I wouldn't necessarily object if someone else did feel it speedyable. This title, in fact, was salted in the past to prevent recreation; the most recent version was created at An endless sporadic (band), but I moved it to the orthographically correct title before learning of the history here. Delete if we don't see serious improvement by close; I'd also propose that if this does close as a delete, we blacklist the phrase "Endless Sporadic" since just salting the title clearly isn't enough. (The hope of establishing a consensus for that is one more reason why I chose to take this to AFD instead of shooting on sight.) Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not quite understand what qualifies as something as notable. It seems completely absurd that it must qualify some arbitrary guideline when the band is clearly known to the degree that it's been made four times. The songs are present in a highly successful video game series. After writing this I'll read your shortcuts to see why exactly they don't qualify. I was unaware of the previous three iterations of this article, and just recently came to understand salting, but I will not let some guideline prevent an article from being made. I will bring this article to standards. If you're so upset about it being non-notable and frustrated at the poor quality, then edit them yourselves! I don't listen to the band or own their CDs, but I care enough to try to edit their article! Annihilan 11:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I need to isolate out my main point on disagreeing with the deletion call and subject it to debate on its own. I believe it is clear that the band has met Criteria 10 by virtue of nothing more than sourcing Wikipedia entries for the three video games ("notable works of media") to which the band has contributed music. The remaining debatable topic is whether the band deserves more than the re-direct it has earned by meeting Criteria 10, but having met Criteria 10 the outright deletion is not warranted. Salting and Blacklisting are also clearly not warranted and contrary to Wiki standards.
The debate about sources and their reliability Bearcat and others have is entirely valid and pertinent, but only toward establishing whether there is sufficient additional notability to warrant a full article over an earned redirect status. I find no requirement in WP:MUSIC that fully meeting additional criteria is necessary for an article status once criteria 10 has been met, only that the entry "may" require it to achieve such status, and no direct indication how this "may" be done, leaving it up to debate.
I have noted two additional criteria that seem to have been met at least in spirit, if not letter, and those achievements are, I believe reliably sourced and sufficiently notable. In combination with the fact that the band has satisfied Criteria 10 not just once but on at least three separate instances seems to me to be more than sufficient to warrant an article. Mpoloukhine (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added sourcing to confirm Stolt & Reingold were referred to as "band members" for the band's LP, which would I believe achieve notability under WP:MUSIC Criteria 6. That would be two criteria now met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpoloukhine (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion by local religious sect. No reliable source. Not notable. There is also a redirect at Ritro Gonpo. Fred Talk 19:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Google turns up only trivial mentions of him. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Carol Queen. T. Canens (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a neologism which fails WP:NEO. Sources cited do not show that it has had a particularly wide impact, and although it has been used by some writers, there are no indications of it being notable. It has not been included in the DSM-V, so it's a bit of a fallacy to claim notability based on "consideration" - I would find it extraordinary if it was accepted, simply because it seems to be a politically charged term. Claritas § 15:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declining speedy A7, as my notability detector is wonky. Elevating for better discernment. delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last AFD had a keep consensus for references simply saying it was going to come out. The book has now been released and there is no significant coverage at all. –Chase (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Changing my vote to keep - see below. –Chase (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Merge to Lady Gaga, section: Further Reading. Doesnot deserve own article space. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Per the good work of Cirt, I change my two cents to Keep. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable company. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the subject. It was created by a person in my group, using my computer. Please delete this item.
Notability and sources issues. Article appears to be resume originally posted by article's subject in 2006. Minor edits since then. Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL. Only one part of the "trilogy" has been released, and it hasn't completed yet. The first part already has its own article, so this is essentially dependent on two series that haven't come out yet. Friginator (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But why wait. The second series has been confirmed. Don't you think its just a little bit silly, making 3 articles and then when the issue has been released of the Trilogy then making it in to one. Ultimate Galactus Trilogy is one article. Im just thinking wht you are doing is making the Ultimate Marvel pages messier buy having seperate articles. It is a trilogy, it has been confirmed over and over again. JFBeard (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-neutral article on a non-notable software product, referenced only with a link to the author's own blog (the other "references" are a link within Wikipedia and to the homepages of similar companies given as examples) and zero sources found. Once speedy deleted and then recreated by the same author; retagged for speedy deletion but this time declined. Speedy Delete as spam or non-notable. I42 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since nomination for deletion, page has been modified by a third party in attempt to remove biased POV, additional references added, non-self-published reference link added. Content on this page is now similar in tone and content to the Meridian_KSI page (which only has company-site references), for example. Please advise if additional changes need to be made.Brian.whitmer (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nothing but a pseudo-category page that categorizes three other completely unrelated articles!!! Even if such pages needed categorizing, a category page in Category namespace would have sufficed. Speedy-delete or transfer to Category namespace. Fleet Command (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Dream Focus, but have you ever heard of notability? The subject of similarity of the names between these three UNRELATED titles' fails to meet Wikipedia Notability guideline, that is, it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore does not merit a standalone article. That's just one of the many policies that this article violates. Essentially, this article sail very close to Criteria A3 for Speedy Deletion. By all means, go ahead and put the matter on other articles, but this so-called "Article" thing is not even category, let alone article!
Now, dear Dream Focus, I'm really starting to think whether what you mean was irony!
Fleet Command (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. JForget 01:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable future pageant. I42 (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following sub-pages:
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) --moreno oso (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC) The result was no consensus. The argument that the book is not notable due to a lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources is balanced by the argument that the book is notable due to being written by a notable author - even if that notable author is a group pseudonym. Fences&Windows 14:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested proposed deletion - does not meet WP:NB or WP:N - not enough significant coverage, and I don't consider the notability inherited from Carolyn Keene. Claritas (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Bones_(season_2)#Episodes. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable television episode - per WP:TVEP. No significant coverage, and no claim of notability. Claritas (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 01:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creator removed CSD tag, possible WP:COI and has continued to edit after being informed of the policy. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB in all categories. Promotional tone and text. GregJackP (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
really. You'd delete the tourism voice of a city after a hurricane. Nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.13.62 (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We very much apologize if our lack of Wikipedia knowledge caused us to break any of your policies. It certainly wasn't our intent. We were instructed (clearly and patiently, might I add :) ) what we needed to do to make the entry more acceptable. The message said something like "don't remove this header statement until you've made the appropriate changes, and then added remarks at the bottom describing the changes that were made." In our opinion, we did just that, and believed we were fine to remove the statement. Now we know we were wrong, and absolutely apologize for not following protocol correctly.
That said, there are only a handful of CVB Wikipedia entries, and even less (2, 3?) that don't have error messages up top. NYC & Company (though, albeit, a much larger entity) is very similar in setup (as an organization) as we are, so we used their article as a template. We also used The Galveston County Daily News's article as a guideline as well.
It is not our intent whatsoever to self-serve or to self-promote. However, like both those examples, Galveston.com & Company is a viable entity, and - like the Daily News - is a very important source of information in the Southeast Texas area. We very much invite a writer, or writers, to edit our entry to make it more acceptable.
We also have read - and understand - Wikipedia's "notability" policy. At the end of the day, however, we are all humans. And what is notable to you or someone else, may or not be notable to another. It's subjective.
However, we'd like to raise one point: We invite you to look anywhere else in the United States and find one more example of a public/private relationship between a Convention & Visitors Bureau and private corporation - where an official CVB "tourism" website of a destination is actually owned by a private corporation. Quite simply, you won't find one. Anywhere.
And that, indeed, is notable.
Thanks very much for this opportunity. And, again, we apologize for any problem we may have caused.
Jimcordell (talk)
Jimcordell (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia's notability rules below, and our responses:
...is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria.
1.The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
RESPONSE: The Galveston County Daily News publishes our content daily on its website: http://galvestondailynews.com/events
2.The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]
RESPONSE: 2007 American Business Award (The Stevie) for Best Overall Website, and in 2009, Convention South named us one of the Top 15 Tourism Bureau Websites in the country
3.The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine
RESPONSE: Again, The Galveston County Daily News publishes our content daily on its website: http://galvestondailynews.com/events
Jimcordell (talk) Jimcordell (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I am looking for an approved Wikipedia writer to write a unique and creative article about Galveston.com, the official tourism website of Galveston Island, Texas - and one of the state's most popular in visitor traffic. There are no current articles on Wikipedia. Galveston.com & Company is the company that produces Galveston.com, along with other tourism-related websites and services. As the use of marketing material is not going to be approved on Wikipedia, we need to be discrete as to what information we put on there. I need an experienced Wikipedia writer to help me get an article published. Writer will be asked to format the content the client provides to conform to wikipedia guidelines. Page must be submitted and appear in main wiki without deletion. We prefer someone who has an active account and can provide examples of their pages."
So, using that logic: It's okay to promote a newspaper. Or a tourism agency for New York City.
This article is NOT about Galveston.com the website, just as NYC & Company's page isn't about nycgo.com. The page is about Galveston.com & Company, which includes a website, a travel agency, the DestinationNext web portal software, Virtual Galveston Island in Second Life, an official relationship with a tourism bureau, etc.
And yes. We did attempt to have someone write a Wikipedia article about Galveston.com & Company. Because - as you've stated - it isn't appropriate to write one for yourself. (Again, being novices, we didn't realize such a request - in Wikipedia's eyes - was second only to treason.) Anyway, after 3 days of this? I'm exhausted. Life's way too short. Include the article, or do not. Whether Wikipedia finds Galveston.com & Company notable - or not - truly isn't, well, notable. I'm headed to the beach.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.150.53 (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Floor Jansen. T. Canens (talk) 02:58, 13 June 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)) . |
Article does not assert any notability, and absolutely no third-party resources provided. No significant coverage found elsewhere. — Timneu22 · talk 12:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor union official and even more minor political figure who has never been elected to office. Few sources. Be in Nepean (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declining speedy A7 as notability may be detectable by others. Discuss. UtherSRG (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because her book listed in the 2001 list of Quick Picks for Reluctant Young Adult Readers was not in the top ten should be irrelevant especailly considering that we have musicians listed herein who's works never made the top 40 but were in the top 100. At what point does a number represent relevance? the Top 10 (letterman's famous lists), the Top 100 (Billboard) or the Top 500 (Fortune 500)? Point is, this author has not only had multiple books published (granted they were for a niche that is considered by many to be a joke, but nonetheless they were published and sold well. If Ralph H. Blum is worthy of mention in Wikipedia for his studies regarding runes and the publication of his only publication "The Book of Runes," than so should Savas whose notoriety expands beyond divination and astrology but also includes fashion writing and even an appearance on Jeopardy!BGinOC (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue here is notability. There appears to be three very solid reviews which attest to the notability of this book: in the American Journal of Psychiatry (see [64]), the Journal of Psychosomatic Research (see [65]) and the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (192(7):512, 2004). But there has been considerable debate about whether these and other sources are adequate. The issue is being brought here to facilitate wider community discussion and to decide what do with this article. Johnfos (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability requirements for BLP. Checking in Google Books only reveals obscure mentions rather than something to demonstrate significant impact. There have been a few contributors over six months (and this is a topic with some enthusiasts about) so raising for discussion as an expert may disagree. Fæ (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roadcruft without context / no evidence of notability. This desolate county has two articles covering its roads, and only the list of numbered roads is notable for inclusion. This is essentially a list of names with a link here or there. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization (primary sources and self-praise) Orange Mike | Talk 23:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Road with no indication of notability ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article as the street was referenced at List of roads in Ottawa Andy Johnston (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. no consensus after three weeks JForget 01:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail the applicable notability guidelines WP:ENT and WP:NMUSIC. I have not been able to find significant coverage to meet the WP:General notability guideline either. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Agnostic Front. Redirecting as a poorly sourced BLP. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable biography 24fan24 (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find significant coverage for this topic; it could be merged into something about Buddhism. —fetch·comms 00:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy contested, elevating for discussion, but I believe it still fails notability. delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
((subst:ab))
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This biography of a living director has been on the namespace for five years, and yet it still doesn't have any sources; and speaking of unsourced info about living persons, I think this should be deleted unless there's a decent previous version of it. The most important fact (which is at the bottom) probably does explain why he's famous, but it isn't sourced either. Minimac (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. One source was added and since the original consensus was to "keep" and the nominator is arguing for a rewrite, not deletion, it can now be closed. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs to be rewritten. How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 01:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. All sources are fansites, which do not pass our WP:RS policy. — Dædαlus Contribs 02:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that this article was kept two years ago, but nothing has happened which would warrant an article in those two years.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to West Branch, Michigan. JForget 01:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything more than trivial mentions in sources, and do not think that this is notable. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I am now in support of a redirect; see below. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom and others, does not seem notable Traxs7 17:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly long standing model railroad club that seems to have attracted no (written) attention. After some diligent searching I can find nothing written about the club (no news articles, book references) and nothing on the web that I would class as reliable. Everything out there seems to be either directory entries (confirming they exist), advertising in hobbyist places or the clubs own website. Nothing that is independant of the club and allows confirmation of any of the material in the article. Does not seem to be a subject we can have a reliably sourced on. Peripitus (Talk) 01:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]