< 24 October | 26 October > |
---|
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Small congregation that lasted for two years, and is now defunct. Fails WP:ORG. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List cruft. Many of these individuals will never be notable. I believe we've had successful AfD's for these pages before. Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-charting album is not notable. Rednevog (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-charting album is not notable. Rednevog (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable as a guitarist or writer. More than a single reference is needed to support this BLP article. Rednevog (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the articles subject has had mentions in several news articles, I do not believe it warrants an article of its own as it is not suitable content for an article. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is a retired minor league baseball pitcher who never even pitched above the high-A level. In fact, he spent only 30 games in the minor leagues. I don't believe that's very notable. Also, there aren't any real "sources" outside the BB-Ref and The Baseball Cube links. Alex (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I was tempted to relist this but there's a consensus that, win or lose, the subject meets WP:GNG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as the coverage is either a) name-drops within an article about their more well-known, notable opponent b) simple voting/registry directory of who is running for this seat, or c) on the local level only, with no national interest. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with failures, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really Tarc, my argument was perfectly in line with WP:Politician. I know you may be facing a massive loss here on all these you submitted but caterwauling??? JodyB talk 14:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NRVE Linclark (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Non-notable films, seems like something made up one day with friends. matt (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Starblind. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable wiki. It's been AFDed under two previous titles (see here and here), and I can't see any evidence that it's any different from last time. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article borders on being the 2nd definition of patent nonsense and based on some of the writing was almost certainly copy+pasted from somewhere. (Though I couldn't find the source - there are lines like can be seen HERE, as well as what are obviously section headers and sub-headers.) It also fails to provide any sources other than one at tigers-bay.com, despite some major claims that should be sourced. The website is prominently featured throughout the article, despite that the subject - at least on the surface - being about a location. Addionne (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actress is a relation of numerous undoubtedly notable individuals, but I doubt whether based on the information provided here and on google she can be said to meet WP:NACTOR, her bio here consists of student and minor theatre roles, and one-off character parts in individual episodes of television series. Ajbpearce (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Ajbpearce (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 17:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer who has not yet made an appearance in the first-team. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as the coverage is either a) name-drops within an article about their more well-known, notable opponent b) simple voting/registry directory of who is running for this seat, or c) on the local level only, with no national interest. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with failures, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, let's ignore POLITICIAN for now, it is clear that he hasn't won a national position. Thus question thus becomes has he met the General Notability Guidelines. Guess what, I think he has (this list will only include each source once):
Mentioned in international press
He also is mentioned (but more as a competitor in a contested race) in the WSJ [13], Jerusalem Post[14], Philadelphia Post [15] I could go on and on... this guy may not meet POLITICIAN, but he clearly meets the GNG.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article's references don't demonstrate notability. I have searched for evidence but haven't found any, but the common name doesn't help! Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem on this article that I cannot quite pin down. Three main areas of concern:
Apologies for vagueness, there seems like "something here that cannot sustain an article", or that needs much stronger citations and a better focus and title if it is to do so. Maybe other contributors can pin down the issue better and reach a consensus on fixing it if possible. Possible treatments:
FT2 (Talk | email) 18:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned list, blatant redlink bait. Fewer than half the entries have articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 17:42, 1 November 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)) . |
lack of notability Minbbb (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)— Minbbb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Allison Kilkenny is a journalist who has written articles in all of the places mentioned on her Wikipedia page. The facts on her page here are true. She is noteworthy because she has been producing articles in magazines and online for years, and she also co-hosts an online podcast today. There is no reason to remove her page here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldskeptical (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC) — Oldskeptical (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Allison Kilkenny is published on several prominent internet news websites (including The Huffington Post), featured in a book published by The Nation, and currently is the host of a popular podcast called Citizen Radio. In this podcast Kilkenny discusses some of the most important issues of our time with notable intellectuals and journalists including Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and Amy Goodman. She is gaining wider notability and already has a great deal of credibility in the blogosphere and the emerging world of podcasts. Most importantly, Kilkenny is part of an emerging movement of independent voices taking advantage of new forms of media (in her case podcasts) to express themselves and share information. Therefore, this page should not be deleted. MCVMCVMCV (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)— MCVMCVMCV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I have read Allison Kilkenny's work on The Huffington Post and have listened to her commentary. She brings a valuable viewpoint to discussions of current concern and is quite worthy of this listing on Wikipedia. There is no reason for it to be deleted. Mikegoldnj (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)— Mikegoldnj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Regarding comment by Ravenswing, who wondered "whether the next act involves prompt public claims of (presumably right wing) censorship": I like the subject's writing and was trying to follow a link, got lost, Googled, and was surprised to find the Wikipedia article. I like radical politics, but I like Wikipedia and its integrity, too, which is why I AfD'd the vanity article. I promptly received Wiki-talk claiming the subject was “clearly targeted for political reasons”. Minbbb (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article has a single dead weblink as a source. That's not sufficient to support the existence of an article per WP:V. Can be recreated if there are reliable sources describing such a state, rather than the movement that wants to establish it. Sandstein 07:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence found that this is indeed a country, article relies on a single source. Fails per WP:OR, and WP:V. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[[16]]XavierGreen (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. No outstanding "delete" votes and numerous changes. — Timneu22 · talk 16:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only source is an original research paper written as an essay by the author of this article. This article is not written in an encyclopedic fashion, and the text arrives at a conclusion. — Timneu22 · talk 11:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now included more references. I think the page should be modified rather that deleted. Plant cover is a concept that is very often used in plant ecology (67.700.000 hits in Google)
Christian Damgaard
The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator:Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (film) and redirect to Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy#Cinema. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFF. -- Cirt (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 hoax JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable piece of fiction. May be a hoax since a search for "Narnibethia" only gives this page. And while Google search for the "Magical goldfish" does turn up some results, they don't appear to be talking about the same one mentioned in this article. Feinoha Talk, My master 17:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This BLP has remained unsourced for over three years. Although the information in the article makes him sound notable, I can find no independent sources to confirm the information and verify that he meets the notability criteria as outlined at WP:ARTIST Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a race for a neighborhood commission in a municipal district of Washington, D.C. It has clearly generated some media coverage and there are reliable sources, but it is ultimately still a very local race and all of the sources are local to D.C. I have tried hard to clean it up and fix the sources, but it does not seem to me that it passes the general notability guideline. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An associate professor which seems to fail our WP:PROF notability guidelines. Yes, he's been the recipient of accolades from people in cold fusion circles, but that insular community's self-reinforcing attempts to make their ideas famous should not be confused for external notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Frappé. Tone 17:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, thus listed here - Neologism of dubious importance, anyway a violation of WP:NOT a dictionary Travelbird (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nelson Rockefeller's youngest son is perhaps a respectable small businessman—nothing wrong with that. But I see nothing about him that sticks out above any number of other such figures who don't happen to be Rockefellers; the citations in the article argue against any sort of larger notability. Perhaps his best claim to fame so far is having been leading pass receiver in the Ivy League in 1988, but that's pretty small potatoes. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bio stub for a plastic surgeon. No indication of notability except that he has published a number of book chapters and peer-reviewed publications. The Web of Science lists 31 publications that have been cited a total of 41 times. Most cited ones have counts of 8-8-6-5, with an h-index of 4. I do not find any citations in WoS to the book chapters. Does not meet WP:PROF. Crusio (talk) 15:12, 25 October 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)) . |
You need to perform a correct search. There are 35 articles cited by Pubmed.If you do not know how to search, please learn your job, otherwise please quit your job.Secondly there are 5 book chapters written by Dr Sterodimas and your job is to cite them iotherwise again quit your job. There are more than 15 lectures given on tissue engineering in the last 3 months and he is considered as a leader in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.108.194 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — 194.219.108.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
http://books.google.com/books?id=K-HYbvHxcKcC&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=sterodimas&source=bl&ots=8kwY1L92y-&sig=tgWbMirFNHhBAXbfTYsqwu5q_SY&hl=en&ei=iL_FTICAHcHFswa4wrzSCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBjge#v=onepage&q=sterodimas&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.120.225 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC) — 188.4.120.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not Delete 35 publications on pioneer in adipose tissue engineering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.120.225 (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — 188.4.120.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. Needs some trimming, though. Tone 17:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a spam article D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable summer camp. Of the references provided, only one (the BusinessWeek article) mentions this camp at all, and that only in passing as an example of the point being made, not as the main thrust of the article. Spammy text could be addressed, but lack of notability cannot. All ghits are promotional in nature. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest I do to improve the article? It is for a class project. The other references are from newspapers how are they not valid references? (Axs912 (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
In addition, there are other articles about summer camps that don't even have references. I have references. I am committed to making this right and appreciate any help (Axs912 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
What link are you referring to John? — Axs912 — continues after insertion below
Dan - if you take a closer look at the college weekend college days article Wekeela is mentioned.
I really appreciate your critique and advice. (Axs912 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
And what about the businessman of the year award? That doesn't talk about the Camp? Northjersey.com is not a reliable source? (Axs912 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep I did not mean award pardon my mistake. The article clearly talks about the camp. It talks about the owner of the camp. This article is significant coverage. It uses Camp Wekeela as an example of camps being out there and people living their lives by running a camp. Its educational. The world is in need of jobs, this article exemplifies how this man uses a camp, Camp Wekeela to provide for his family and community and several families in the world. (Axs912 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Why the negativity? This article has never been posted before. How about some advice on how to improve it and make it better? (Axs912 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. There is a clear consensus here (mercifully, because these NOTNEWS AfDs rarely produce clear outcomes) that there is insufficiently lasting coverage or impact associated with this event to transcend NOTNEWS. Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DEL. Non notable so-called "controversy" apparently exacerbated by Australian internet trolls and vagabonds (including the fella who wrote this ridiculous article). Fail to meet notability guideline. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, except from blogs and quips from The Young Turks. Should be an uncontroversial deletion.Eachlucky (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A disambig page with a Japanese title. No need for this in EN wiki - if anyone knows a rule I could use to speedy pages like this, I have a couple more. JaGatalk 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what this is supposed to be. It might be a couple of personal essays. Or it might be verbatim copies or translations of magazine articles? Either way it doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Anyone have any idea who or what Ibado is? I can't find any source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources despite being tagged since 2008 Rojomoke (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article about someone who is claimed to be a notable Pakistani, murdered in a land dispute. No references, nothing relevant on Google. Reading between the lines he may not have been "notable" outside his own immediate locale. Fails WP:RS, WP:BIO andy (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, original article began with two fake references, fact tags were removed without explanation from unreferenced assertions that he's been signed by a major label etc. Top Jim (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
notability: no unambiguous definition provided in literature; definition requires extrapolation from various sources which may conflict depend on intent of source; term is used in scientific literature for convenience and not as a topic of discussion in itself
The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable, The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category, The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia, Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available. Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.
I'm relatively new to actually editing wikipedia, so I added the above after writing my reasons, which I'll keep, below:
I don't believe the subject warrants its own article largely because there is no "official" definition of a "substituted phenethylamine." You can find the terminology used in scientific literature, but the definition of a "substituted phenethylamine" is going to be in the eye of the beholder. For example, in Alex Shulgin's Phenethylamines I Have Known and Loved, his criteria for inclusion is based on the synthetic process used to make a drug, his intent to explore derivations of the phenethylamine moiety and the limitations in the number of substances he synthesized (if he'd produce 10000 for the book, dextrorphan could have been included in PIHKAL). I can find scientific research articles pointing out that, for example, opioids (including heroin) contain the phenethylamine moiety and thus could be considered "substituted phenethylamines." Similarly, LSD even contains the phenethylamine moiety embedded in it. PIHKAL doesn't offer a good definition of what phenethylamines are, except for compounds with "appropriate" substitutions to the backbone.
In patents referring to a "substituted phenethylamine" the definition depends on the intentions of the invention. US patent 20070148622, titled "Substituted phenethylamines with serotoninergic and/or norepinephrinergic activity" includes a definition of "substituted phenethylamines" that is very different than the image on wikipedia's substituted phenethylamines page.
Underneath the image on the wikipedia page the caption states that the formula is the "basis of all substituted phenethylamines" but this contradicts other sources, such as the patent I mentioned which considers venlafaxine (Effexor) to be a "substituted phenethylamine". While the wiki article on venlafaxine calls it a "phenethylamine," venlafaxine is not mentioned on the list of substituted phenethylamines.
Now, maybe one could make an argument that "substituted phenethylamines" are notable due to Shulgin's book, but I also see that there are entries for "substituted amphetamines" and "substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines." This is just ridiculous because there is a lot of overlap between these groups: the difference between phenethylamine and amphetamine is only ONE methyl group. We could easily come up with an arbitrarily large number of "substituted (whatevers)" and end up listing most of the same chemicals over and over in these groups. The list of substituted amphetamines, for example, should have very large overlap with "substituted phenethylamines."
That's part of my question then, is why is there a list, for "substituted phenethylamines" and not for "substituted (any other arbitrary moiety)?" Why no substituted methanes?
I'd like to reiterate that even though you can find the term "phenethylamine" (and "substituted phenethylamine") being used in scientific literature to discuss various structurally related compounds, how the term is used or defined also depends on the subject matter of the article and who the article is written for (biologists may define a "phenethylamine" in a paper one way while a medicinal chemist may define the term another way). The term is used in science literature for convenience because the phenethylamine moiety is quite ubiquitous, but I challenge anyone to find a source providing an unambiguous definition (you won't). There's no, one, unambiguous definition for "substituted phenethylamines." It's a convenient term to use when the subject matter at hand is a bunch of related compounds. I tentative plan to make the same proposal that "substituted amphetamines," "substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines" be deleted.
I assert that the "substituted phenethylamine" article does not meet the notability guideline: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." AlkaloidMan (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)AlkaloidMan[reply]
BTW, I think it's pretty lame not to read my argument. I propose we mere "substituted amphetamines" and "substituted methylenedioxyphenethylamines" with the current group and reorganize into pharmacologically verifiable groups, as opposed to this wholly arbitrary category that by all means could include the far more complex compounds I just listed.AlkaloidMan (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)AlkaloidMan[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer. Has apparently played once for Greenland, but I don't believe this meets WP:ATHLETE because Greenland isn't a member of FIFA and its matches aren't considered full internationals. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Travian Games. Anyone wishing to merge anything from the page will find the content under the redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no non-trivial references from reliable, third party sources. There is a single source (The Hindu) that is reliable but doesn't cover the game in any depth as required by WP:WEB. None of the remaining sources are reliable according to the WikiProject Video games guide to sources. I used the WPVG custom Google search and found only more trivial and forum posts. The "Browser Game of the Year" mention is from site that has been judged by WPVG as specifically unreliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Emmerdale characters#Recurring characters. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as per my previous nomination. fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. no significant multiple roles. gnews: [24] and alternate spelling. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
VARoute638NotOneRoad --Tim Sabin (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has many redirects associated with it. If this article is deleted, those redirects should be deleted as well.
I was one of the editors for this article and its redirects; that was a big mistake. Sorry. --Tim Sabin (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 14:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet notability criteria + this person is spamvertising his wikipedia page sciencewatcher (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I arrived at this page after receiving a spam email from Honey Pot Mail which Mr Madeley appears to run. Since this appears to be the only reason for this page I have added a speedy deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjpg (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same as commenter above - received a spam message and looked him and honeypotmail up here. Should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.17.101 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with this company and know that their databases are all opt-in and consequently they have several brand name clients. I am sure they would confirm this if approached by anyone who is unhappy with their emails. Their website states that they have a database of 360,000 'members' so I would expect more than 3 complaints out of 360,000 people, if it was actual spam.
On the contrary, such a low complaint rate is evidence that it is actually an opt-in database. Based on this complaint rate, if they emailed everyone in the UK simultaneously they would only receive 519 complaints nationally.
I see the subject's emails connected with this company and confirm that the subject's Wikipedia page has been included, on occasion, in the email signature as a source of further information. I can see no problem with this in Wikipedia's guidelines.
With regard to notability criteria:
The subject is the main topic of the following references, thus exceeding the notability criterion for 'significant coverage': http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/business/business_opinion/business_opinion_chris/8785385.Well_deserved_honour_for_character_Keith/ and http://www.aroundtownpublications.co.uk/online/celebrities/wakefield-mr-yorkshire.html
Both sources are clearly secondary, with obvious reliability (i.e. editorial integrity). Both sources are also self-evidently independent of the subject. For example, the Telegraph and Argus Newspaper is owned by Newsquest Media Group, which has no connection to the subject.
The above establishes the presumption that the subject is suitable. This presumption is accurate because the evidence is verifiable from a wide variety of sources which have built up over several years and not as a consequence any short-term promotional or publicity efforts. --109.153.45.0 (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say this seems like either a personal, or completely emotional attack with no evidence whatsoever given (or even attempted) for either the claim about the veracity of the email list or the notability of Keith Madeley. It is impossible for anyone to know whether their details are legitimately held by a particular company or not because of 'third party opt-in'. I advise readers to Google a definition of this legal term, and if they find it unacceptable, for them to never share their details with any company without first reading that company's privacy policy line by line and checking whether they may 'share your details with selected third parties'. As for Keith Madeley's notability, the post on 4th August has put this beyond doubt, as have the original page's citations. I wonder what is really behind anonymous Vendettas like this...--83.244.233.130 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The post by IP address 109.153.45.0 on 4th August made completely clear that the MBE award, although could be seen as justification for the entry, is coincidental - The subject's clearly had a very high profile for several years and the entry was online long before the MBE was awarded (and no one disputed it then). Also, 10 people out of a database of 360,000 considering an email spam does seem like a very low number (possibly below average for an opt-in list?) So I have to echo the commenter's question on 5th August: "I wonder what is really behind anonymous Vendettas like this...?" --135.196.50.125 (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, per WP:SNOW, WP:BLP and common sense. John (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This photographer does not meet WP:BIO. I can find no reliable sources for him either on his website or via google. Some of the sources cited in his article are his own webpage (not independent of the subject) or are just not reliable sources.
The only clear reliable source cited in his article is "Ventura (CA) Star-Free Press (now the Ventura County Star) 18 May 1986 "The Art of War" pg C-9, column 8". But even there, it is not clear how much of that article covers Mr. Colegrove. Several paragraphs? A few lines? One of a list of people? That newspaper article supports text indicating that the year before his graduation, he worked as a photojournalist. People's summer jobs during college usually do not get much press, so I suspect this is nothing.
The other significant sources is from the "Organization for Ethical Photojournalism". Their info page indicates they are mostly supported by volunteer labor. Only one person on that list seems like a fact-checker (someone that does "research"). It is unclear from that whether this site would qualify as a reliable source. Without clearer indication that this person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I think we should delete this article.--Chaser (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<BLP vio redacted>.NoWayToExplain (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested proposed deletion. PROD reasoning was the usual, lack of reliable sources. A ref from Billboard magazine was added after the prod was removed. While that is a reliable source, the coverage is a trivial directory-type entry and does little to nothing to establish notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per a minor WP:HEY job and the nominator being cool with the new version. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Originally proposed for deletion and deleted, but the author contested the prod and thus it was undeleted. Really, this article is horrible, beyond salvage. It is hardly even an article, more like someone's personal blog post. It is full of personal notes by the author, written in first-person voice, and it blatantly admits it. Very few, if any, parts have any sources. The author even made a talk page comment asking other people not to edit the article. The author must think Wikipedia is his/her personal blog. DELETE. JIP | Talk 05:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Space Trilogy. A consensus is to merge. I'll create a redirect, all the content can be accessed. Tone 17:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article goes too far into a fictional world. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Purely speculative article. There are numerous kinds of vehicles that could be built if fuel cell cars even come to fruition but until then the concept of a fuel cell sports car specifically is not notable. Sable232 (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough. Ibrahim92 (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a very specific section of a very specific version of a qualification. Not remarkable enough for its own article. No other modules covered in the Edexcel AS-Level Mathematics award have their own articles, although they would be equally as worthy. Tomayres (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Direct-to-video film with no notable coverage. Doesn't meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 10:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Hawthorne Heights. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability guidelines - two of the sources are self-published, the other doesn't mention him at all. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Created for IP by ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "blog" linked to by the article is simply a news aggregation page. The first "award" cited as a source is a self-entered, paid-for site that doesn't itself seem notable. The second award is from a site with so many categories as to be worthless. The Guardian article is by Mettacara himself, so shouldn't be used as a source. In short, I can find lots of *claims* that Mettacara is a political blogger, but can't find any actual original writing by him. As such, he's non-notable. Jonobennett (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO. Has played one very minor role in a currently redlinked movie (The Whole Truth (2009 film)), with the two other roles mentioned at the article not even included in IMDb. Her beauty pageant titles are also not notable, with e.g. not a single mention of her win of Miss Washington Earth[31], and not a single reliable source and very few unreliable ones mentioning her related to Miss Earth[32]. No Google News hits either for her name. Fram (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. One delete !vote is a very weak consensus but it's not likely that this film is notable and I don't want anybody's computer getting hozed when they try to check /search for sources. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created with clear conflict of interest to promote the film directly from the producers. There is no notable third-party coverage that I can find and no one notable is attached to the film. No wide or even limited theatrical release is apparent, only small screenings. Fails WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 08:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the story this morning, and yes it does check out, but I'd go for "one event"... the guy hasn't done anything else in his life that could make him notable. The case can be described elsewhere once more becomes known. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unpatrolled since 19 September 2010. This appears to be a spam posting for Chinese copies of genuine products. Doubtful encyclopedic value. Kudpung (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Sockpuppetry notwithstanding, there is insufficient evidence of notability per WP:EVENT and WP:BIO. --RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Additionally, although a courageous story, it appears this is notability per a single local event article. ttonyb (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Shiasp101 (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Sticking to just the technical elements, the story meets as much of the notability criteria as does one on say a name like "Justin Barker" who is part of the Jena Six story line. Unlike a leaked or unsourced story, this one has court cases and dates and actual verbiage written and signed by a seated Judge and Clerk. Easily verified. Also, the Biography itself is verifiable through Univ registra & SOS. Further, this story seems to meet all the general criteria fitting that of a biography of a living person; And is the same as that of other people of little known fact and historic or precedence setting. Therefore it meets the standards and should not be deleted.— Shiasp101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Removed sockpuppet vote! ttonyb (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Ari4eva (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)I think this story is more than courageous because it is what the American spirit is all about. Whereas it transcends color by being a voice for the voiceless, it validates the perseverance of people of color. Importantly, it also highlights the social struggles that still exist between blacks and whites; that invisible, un-crossable line. Moreover, there is the opportunity for unique case study in precedence. It’s extraordinary that the case section is written in a way that presents impact of racism, due process, and outcomes for both parties. I think that both are fairly represented. The links show sequentially the events actually happened! I was blown away to see the actual court documented writings! And the “N” word should be linked to this story as a category of ref because the story offers much insight into behavior and actions of people.
[reply]
In any case, Wikipedia seems to have many “Michele Bowie” noteworthy biographies. I don't know what obstacles she's had to endure, but it takes a strong person to handle such a situation the way she did. So maybe aspects of her life and education touch on many areas that should be linked to stories like Nat Love. Although, his is an autobiography, which from what I gathered is frowned heavily upon by Wikipedia guidelines. Comparatively, the Nat Love's story (though courageous & commendable) is less verifiable. So no, the Michele Bowie story should not be deleted. In fact, this is the kind of story someone should pass on to CNN. — Ari4eva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Removed sockpuppet vote! ttonyb (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--LTD1959 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)This biography shows how intellect and the system was used to deal with racism. Sheds more insight on the black/white relationship, closed minds, and the way the "N" word is used in anger. So, it should not be deleted.— LTD195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Removed sockpuppet vote! ttonyb (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InformationWare (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully request that you do not remove Michele Bowie's Article. The Article is factually based upon her personal experiences. The experiences referenced in the article will be inspirational and therapeutic to others who have had similar encounters. More importantly, Michelle Bowie touched upon a topic that needs open and honest discussion. We have made tremendous progress in America regarding race relations through an open display of racial displeasures or racial encouragements. In order to gain our country’s ultimate goal of racial utopia, we can never suppress conversations geared towards reaching that goal. Unfortunately, the N-Word and its impact need to be at or near the forefront when having the aforementioned discussion.[reply]
--Latchat (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Do Not Delete I live in GA. I saw this on the Internet and thought no way! I found a Michele Bowie in the Online Secretary of State Business Records that owns a company called PCI since 1998. Called the superior court to find out about the case. Guess what? It happened. The guy got three years for what she said! I didn't believe it. But it happened. The Grand Jury really handed down an indictment for this. That's amazing! And completely notable & noteworthy all on its own! To me this whole thing is simple, you have the names and case numbers. Do what I did: google the state and superior courts. But beware, they're probably swamped with calls on this one.[reply]
The result was merge to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. Courcelles 00:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game show tournament. Other game shows often have special tournaments, and while someone won $1 million in this tournament it's not notable enough to warrant a separate article.
The result was speedy deleted as creation by a banned user with no major edits from others. AnemoneProjectors 22:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Singer whose "hits" are unknown outside of this article, and actor whose television career spans 23 years of bit parts. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable American hip hop producer. Article has no sources, and couldn't find any to satisfy N or MUSICBIO. A previous AfD had no participants so was closed as NC. The same person created this article in the French wiki, and I suspect they just haven't got round to deleting it--like us. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Few comments but the two are correct. JodyB talk 16:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Record label. Some infiliation with notable acts, but not notable on its own. Previous closed NC with no comments. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard quote is very true- he was leader of the band supercreme- which as featured in Billboard and was quoted one of the best in NY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.70.245 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:NALBUMS. don't see any evidence of meeting this criteria. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]