The result was Keep: nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). There are thousands of researchers and University professors across USA and the world with 100s of publications to their credit. Publishing is their job and that alone doesnt make a person notable. The article fails to explain the impact of his research as will be required to be demonstrated by secondary sources. --CarTick 23:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Material hidden by nominator
|
---|
(←) Thanks Salih. To Xxanthippe: it just happened i am involved in two of these unpleasant wikidramas at the same time. by linking to ANI, u certainly implied that i have an agenda that drives both the dramas, but failed to provide a rationale how. You were comparing apples with oranges. i do fully support evaluating edit history of users. I myself had just called out about 10 (who knows how many) of editors for being WP:SPAs in Nair article. I am also aware that doing so can piss off genuine vandals and responsible users alike. As far as i remember, this is my first afd nomination of an academic and i keep realising i still have a lot to learn. The main reason i nominated the article was the familiarity of the topic and i meet hundreds of people of the man's caliber in everyday life and never thought all of these men qualify wikipedia article. I have to admit, my utopian (naïve) imagination of wikipedia notability is somewhat shaken. This also makes me want to create articles of the thousands of missing researchers. Everybody has an agenda. To say otherwise would be disingenuous. My agenda is to participate in Tamil Nadu and India related articles. Though i try my best to be neutral in my edits and discussions, i wouldnt be surprised if people notice i hold favourable views to some of these topics. I am pretty confident WP:Prof and academic AFD debates are influenced by editors with an agenda to keep the notability bar low for conceivable reasons. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein wouldnt probably have the time to be participating in wikipedia editing. I would say personal agendas are ok as long as it conforms with wikipedia guidelines. That is exactly why we have WP:NPOV. --CarTick |
The result was speedy deleted by User:Newyorkbrad, salted by yours truly; extensive discussion will be needed before considering recreating this article in the mainspace. –MuZemike 02:32, 9 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)) . |
Not clearly notable businessman, recreation of previously AFDd page (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce McMahan (3rd nomination). Some off wiki canvassing is also apparently happening here and here. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! --24.7.75.209 (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I know it's not a ballot, jeeze. Was just trying to be a friendly ip. --24.7.75.209 (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting. I would argue that the question of notability is answered by the existence of multiple articles about the man in numerous publications, but clearly this article needs expansion to elaborate on why he's notable. HorseloverFat (talk)
This is absurd. Added CSD G4 tag to article. Sven Manguard Talk 00:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm sorry but the delete !voters in this one make a pretty good case for WP:NOTNEWS. There are some suggestions to merge but currently there is no target. If someone wishes to write an article about earthquakes in this region and wishes to merge anything from this article, I'll be glad to restore it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not of lasting significance. The BBC reported five years ago there were no injuries or damage. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTNEWS. Non-notable earthquake causing no damage or injuries. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Single episode is not article worthy, fails WP:GNG. Derild4921☼ 22:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No notable, no assertion of notability, refs contain passing mentions or recitations of press releases, fails WP:CORP Velella Velella Talk 22:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While the subject is mentioned in numerous items of coverage, consensus is that the mentions do not add up to significant coverage in reliable sources, as opposed to incidental or trivial coverage. Mkativerata (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person; sole source essentially a blog; apparently done by SPA as part of a movie promotion. PhGustaf (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this AfD was mentioned in an edit summary on the Tea Party movement page
Not too mention his participation in panel discussions as a Tea Party grass roots activist right along side Jenny Beth Martin the Tea Party Leader: http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2010/04/26/glenside_news_globe_times_chronicle/news/doc4bd612aeaf891979120489.txt http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/jenny-beth-martin-the-522344.html ~Divageek2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divageek2010 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The keep side have made appeals to inclusion beyond existing guidelines - which is entirely valid - but those appeals are contrary to the clear consensus here. Mkativerata (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD; was proposed for deletion by me on the grounds Non-notable: no mainstream coverage (BBC, any national newspaper, etc.)
For me, this concern has not been met, and, as such, the argument fails WP:V, from which there is no coming back, however nice the article.
Additionally, I would like to point out the (rather long) rebuttal of this proposed deletion by Modgardener on the article talkpage. It is only fair that I do so, in case s/he does not comment here. Whilst I sympathise with the points made, as far as I can tell me have some sort of alphabet soup link for each paragraph: WP:EXISTS, WP:FUTURE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to name but three. I agree with the contester that the article is reasonably neutral, that is not the concern here; also, I wish Wikipedia were a good way to promote a new form of radical political party, but it is not. We are here to report on existing, notable political parties after they have become "famous". And I would take that last paragraph as an insult, but I was laughing too much. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'll create a redirect to California gubernatorial election, 2010. Consensus is that the subject fails inclusion standards and there is no consensus for the "delay" option. It's quite normal to delete articles about candidates in the middle of a campaign. Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a non-office holding candidate, lacks independent coverage other than a couple articles that state that he is a candidate, but provide no other information that would establish notability. Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Saag. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a cookbook. (This editor is apparently creating multiple pages for non-notable indian cuisine -- somebody with more time than I might want to keep an eye on this) Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable GoBots character. All sources in the article are either YouTube videos or Transformers fansites. Delete. Divebomb (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to Category:Fictional kangaroos and wallabies, but practically all the entries have either no article, are redirects to list articles, or redirect to Kangaroo or Wallaby. And - surprise surprise - completely unsourced. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee, 2010#District 6*. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable failed political candidate. Hairhorn (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Article was blatant advertising, which has been cleaned up, but little remains after removal of puffery. Fails notability criteria because is not subject of multiple, nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious WP:CRYSTAL. I can't find any reliable sources that verify any of the episode titles; the TV Guide and MSN TV listings are blank. The P&F Wiki doesn't even mention any of the episodes besides the musical one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NO!!!! Phineas and Ferb Season 1 and 2 have their own articles, why should'nt this one? It's coming up very soon. Don't touch the sides! Butterfingers! (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put the titles.:)The Klimpaloon I've done a lot to these mountains since 1883! Let's nang together! 22:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ADDED THE...is it okay if I use profanity on Wikipedia...THIS IS AWKWARD...LINKS IN EXTERNAL LINKS BEFORE HE/SHE DID!The Klimpaloon I've done a lot to these mountains since 1883! Let's nang together! 14:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)The Klimpaloon who is furious[reply]
Well, Unnamed bio-dome episode and the unadded Candace Gets Busted come from Jon Colton Barry, a songwriter on PnF! The Klimpaloon I've done a lot to these mountains since 1883! Let's nang together! 21:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. In view of the sources presented by Cunard, the previous "delete" opinions appear moot. Sandstein 11:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable product. Doesn't fall under A7. — Timneu22 · talk 15:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Anonymous (band). Sandstein 11:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album from a probably not-notable band. See related AfD discussion at Stress (album) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete There's no bar against putting some information into the article about the high school. Mandsford 22:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable season for a non-notable team from a barely notable high school. No national standing, no non-local news coverage, fails in just about every way. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC) ~~ GB fan ~~ 16:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as nomination withdrawn due to sources found by Marasmusine. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game by Zynga. Only has one source right now. Yes, Zynga is popular, but that does not guarantee their games an article. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Fishville is a popular game and deserves some info about it. --Bluedude588 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Deleting as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor actor lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been apparently 'announced' in 2007, with a release date of "TBA 2009" that's never been updated. A Google search turns up next to nothing. This is a game that most likely does not even exist and therefore is a dead article. ☆ Antoshi ☆ T | C 15:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article on an online gaming company that sits right on the cusp of speedy deletion. There are two sources cited in the article, but they're small blurbs rather than substantial coverage. The major flaw, though, is that notability of the subject is not demonstrated—not every company that designs/runs online games is notable. —C.Fred (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article tagged with notability and refimprove since August, no change. Couldn't find and reliable, significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Recommending WP:SALT as well since it has been recreated multiple times without being able to pass notability guidelines. --Teancum (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable product, advert, no sources or third-party coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Stanisław Burzyński. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline WP:SPAM; all information contained is already well covered in antineoplaston and Stanisław Burzyński; clinic is not notable per WP:COMPANY, apart from its association with the doctor and the treatment. Redirect to antineoplaston reverted by article's creator. Top Jim (talk)
Redirect to Stanisław Burzyński. No evidence that the company meets WP:COMPANY or even the WP:GNG, but I can see this as a valid search term. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i will try to meet the guidelines. Jim, there was not a discussion deleted. you told me what where doing with big icons and put it on the TOP of my page. i did suggest you help fix it rather than place maint templates all over it. i deleted nothing in the discussion on the article page. --Humanfeather (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you know what i mean. --Humanfeather (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
at the time it was redirected, it may have been resonable. I should have finished in my sandbox but i messed around with the article live and that was a mistake and won't happen again. however, since then I have added outside sources and am now adding more to show multiple independent sources to establish notability. --Humanfeather (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While a good article, I feel that this rowing club doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion outlined at WP:ORG. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already deleted, G11. — Timneu22 · talk 12:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an essay, seems like WP:OR, arrives at a conclusion. Not an encyclopedic entry. — Timneu22 · talk 12:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for product. Lacking in any third-party references. If there is a generic term for this, perhaps a redirect to a section in Gold bar would be more appropriate than this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article on band with unsourced claims of notability: having gone on tour in Europe and making appearance in North America. Google News returns only trivial mentions of the band name. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show that this company is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a case of someone trying to make an article simply because something exists. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Author contests prod. No assertion of importance / significance. --ZhongHan (Email) 11:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --Mike Cline (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This boutique bicycle frame maker has a couple of write-ups of its products in the specialist Bicycle Quarterly, which I don't think is enough to pass WP:CORP. Other than that, there is no sourcing upon internet searching (180 Google hits) and no particular claim of notability. Deleted and salted as spam prior to this edition. Prodded and deprodded by User:UnitedStatesian. Abductive (reasoning) 09:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been up for a week, and I think it has run its course. Could an uninvolved editor please review the posted opinions and close this discussion with an appropriate closing notice? Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable WP:BIO, WP:GNG - rapper with only mixtape releases. This was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Beast in 2008, hence when I used proposed deletion that was rejected "articles previously deleted through AFD cannot be prodded" (although that was a previous version)...anyway. Not notable, no reliable sources and I cannot find any. Chzz ► 09:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nomination. And rewrite the prod-instructions so recreated, previously deleted articles about living people can be prodded due to lack of sourcing, or else this is stupid. Notice the heavy argumentation: "Or else!" :-) Greswik (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: I retract this, I don't agree with myself. Greswik (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no sources, no indication of why this orchestra is notable Dlabtot (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Clearly is notable per the guidelines at WP:Music. To the nominator, please take the time to do some internet searches for sources before nominating an article at AFD. A two minute search would have made it apparent that this article should never have been nominated for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a self-promotion or/and COI. See little to support why this individual is notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This youngster appears to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT, and no encyclopaedic notability Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability, under any relevant guideline ~ mazca talk 00:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to fail the WP:GNG as well as the more specific WP:PRODUCT and WP:WEB guidelines for notability. Searching GNews and GBooks shows no matches for this computer game and the only sources added to the article are either self published or game reviews that do not address the requirement for significant impact. One 2008 award has been mentioned in the article (Unity) but this was a mention along with twelve others for 'special recognition' which is a category they created that year for games not winning the planned awards (there were 70 nominations). It should also be noted that Unity is not a games market/industry award but limited to the those games created with Unity's game development tools, consequently not suitable as evidence of notability. Earlier templates for improvement have been removed without discussion or satisfactory improvement and a previous PROD deleted, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to SM Supermalls#Branches in Philippines. Redirect target can be changed editorially if appropriate. But consensus is that this does not currently need an article. Sandstein 11:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally completing broken AfD nomination; rationale by Arthurchanning (talk · contribs) was "delete hearsay mall. No source that this mall will be built"
For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 04:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. But Keep, for Squarespace. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promoting autobiography of blogger, web designer. Subject fails general notability guideline, WP:BIO. Zero third-party coverage in reliable sources.
Related nomination of a promotional article created by the same user, an employee of the company that is the subject of the article. Subject fails primary criteria of WP:CORP. One Reuters blog post is cited in the article; the other principal source is drawn from an article in http://www.crunchbase.com, which appears to be an open wiki:
-- Rrburke (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. PROD tag remover added one small source but edit summary said notability was still dubious. This BIO just doesn't cut the mustard. Existing sources are self-published, google searches would appear to be numerous but they end up as being more self-published stuff. She's a byline, not a subject. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There's no doubt about the consensus here but the behavior of a few of the participants here toward the article's creator was uncalled for. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article reads like an advertisement and has been proded a number of times by different users. article author has not significantly improved the article before removing prod tags. content bears striking resemblance to many of its sources none of which appear to meet WP:RS or indicate WP:NOTE beyond local coverage. article author has also referred to themself as "I" in edit summaries, denoting a probable WP:COI. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We brought in a professional writer and did a complete rewrite from the original post. Any unintended advertisement was removed and notability has been thoroughly supported. Please review the new posting. We respectfully object to this page being deleted. Please refer to Wikipedia post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko which is an excellent example of an accepted documentary post on Wikipedia. Thank you. O1huthhes (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We also respectfully note to Administrators that according to "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved", we were not given a chance by the editors who want us deleted to improve the post. We logged on and found the deletion notice this evening, and began to follow all of the Wikipedia advice immediately. When we began to edit the pages and removed the deletion notice, as instructed, a Speedy Deletion notice appeared instantaneously. We called over a professional writer, who has worked on this and it has improved dramatically and significantly. We have done all of this in the space of the past few hours. And according to "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." This is a brand-new documentary. There are no other articles on it, we checked. O1huthhes (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We submit the Houston Chronicle newspaper as a third party source, and Houston Pet Talk Magazine as a third party source, and Houston Dog Blog as a third party source, and these are linked on the page under Media. Why did the editors miss this? We have a trailer of the film at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMuu9GHdlto We also found this on notability: 'A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right.' Films. We meet those criteria. We also found this on notability "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A press release in Houston's largest pet magazine is not a trivial mention so we pass this test of notability. And on the concern that it was an advertisement, that was just Poor Writing and nothing blatant, and according to Wikipedia policy, we are allowed to rewrite and re-edit. So the seeming two editors that want us deleted are Not following Wikipedia's own "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved" policy. And lastly, the editor objecting to the use of the word "I" in typing, that is just human. How many people can fit at a keyboard? One. We have a several people here, reading, researching, trying to abide by Wikipedia rules, while it seems the editors themselves are not doing so, by giving us no time to rewrite or re-edit before suggesting a Speedy Deletion. This documentary is as valid an entry as Michael Moore's Sicko, but we are a not-for-profit endeavor with this documentary. To the Administrators who will make the decision, please look at the time line that this has occured in this day. We rewrote it as fast as we could. Thank you. O1huthhes (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says "It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing . . . In fact, it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia" We aren't sure what "wiki-lawyering" is that you called us, but in the Wikipedia guidelines, it says that we should support our statements with the guidelines. "Please do not bite the newcomers" We are newcomers, and we are working very hard to do what it takes to correct our page. It's 1am and we all have to go to work. So if you have not succeeded in having us deleted by tomorrow, we will return with more evidence that we are legitimate and deserve to have this small page in Wikipedia. O1huthhes (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And again, Wikipedia says "do not slam the newcomer. Remember, this is a place where anyone may edit and therefore it is in every sense each person's responsibility to edit, rather than to criticize or supervise others. Do not use bad manners or swear at newcomers, or they may not want to contribute to this website again" Why would you ridicule us? What power do you want to have by being rude? We have nothing to hide. This event was a piece of history in Houston, and you laugh at the library theater, have you been there and seen how many people it seats? I hope the Administrators of Wikipedia are more polite than the couple of editors who have written here. We will continue tomorrow. O1huthhes (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says: "The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." We will bring this. Since we are human and must rest and go to work, we will return at a later time. And that is not spinning our wheels. We had no idea that editors were allowed to be so rude. Why would editors, given the privilege of editing, not make constructive remarks, help, and build up? Instead of tear down, ridicule, and make fun of. I doubt that is the intention of Wikipedia. Good night.O1huthhes (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have never complained about the process. We have pointed out that the editors were having bad manners, which is against Wikipedia standards . . . "Do not use bad manners or swear at newcomers, [etc]" 67.65.165.11 (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Redfarmer, for your professionalism. It is appreciated, and much easier to deal with than bad manners. Euthanasia is a serious problem across the entire country http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/fact-sheets/animal-shelter-euthanasia.html To say it is of local interest would be like saying that the only place where health care problems exist, was where Michael Moore filmed. We filmed in the city that has the highest euthanasia rate per capita of any city in America. O1huthhes (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to TheTito for your professionalism. I do not have a shared account, I have a professional writer came over to help re-write the original post. I had two friends via skype looking up Wikipedia data to help solve and understand the problems and issues I've been told are wrong. I started out using the pronoun "I" and an earlier editor suggested I was SPA because I used the word "I" So I started using "we", not knowing what proper protocol. I'm simply new and trying to learn quickly and do things correctly. I sure appreciate seeing you and Redfarmer here, I was beginning to think all editors were allowed to ridicule and have bad manners with no consequences. Are there consequences for bad manners?
"Shared account I noticed on your comments in the deletion discussion of One Hundred Thousand Hearts you repeatedly used the pronoun we. If you are sharing an account, please stop as it is a violation of username policy. If you not sharing an account, kindly disregard this message. Thanks. TheTito Discuss 09:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)"
Thank you Peridon. That input is helpful. The term professional writer was misused on my part, it was my neighbor who tutors kids in school that I dragged out of bed to help me understand "a neutral perspective" and "no advertising" and all the other parameters. And she abandoned me hours ago. I wrote it myself and she helped by explaining things to me. I am the only user on the account. O1huthhes (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Redfarmer, thank you for your concern about COI, and I did re-read those links. Regarding COI, "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." My aim *was* to write a proper article, and a neutral article, and a reliable source. So there was no conflict of interest. And I tried my best to do that. Through your effort and Peridon's effort, I see the irreconcilable flaw, and I just wish I had simply waited to post the article for after the documentary goes on television in Nov/Dec. I jumped the gun. Live and Learn. Monday morning Quarterbacking. Thank you, Peridon, for your feedback, very helpful. And if anyone else feels the need to be rude or have bad manners, could you just let it go? I concede. Delete at will. Thank you O1huthhes (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for the page to come down, that is why I tried to delete it. If that is not proper channels, then time will take care of it. In the defense of TRUTH, the Houston Public Library 4th floor seats 250 people. If you do not believe that, call them and ask: 832-393-1300 The room was called a theater to me by the employees, that is how they referred to it and I never thought to call it differently. And I did not pay anyone to write the page, as I said earlier, the "professional writer" is my neighbor who tutors kids at school in writing. I say professional because she is paid for her job, and I say writer because that is what she does. I was trying to understand what to do, to improve it. I was trying to show you that I was taking your criticism seriously. I find it odd that someone would spend so much time writing here, and yet say they have no time to write to improve the points of the article that they do not like. I don't think one person here has tried to improve the article. Regarding Notability for a Film, a film has five years to achieve that according to Wikipedia standards, and it only has to achieve ONE of those standards, not all of them. So, please, delete the page. Be happy. I am. Go spend your time helping someone make their articles better. The film was only released 13 days ago. I accept responsibility that I did not truly understand what Wikipedia "was" and "was not" and I learned the hard way. I will take that and grow from it. There is no evil plot to take over the world or Wikipedia. It was sheer human error, plain and simple. You can trust and believe me that I will NEVER submit another article to this place again. Someone else can do it. I intend to take this experience, and go quietly into simply editing other people's pages, and constructively help them with their grammar, links and punctuation. The only thing anyone here did was criticize, no one edited. You could have helped make it a better article, but I acknowledge you could not do anything about the Notability issue. O1huthhes (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And btw: The REASON we had the opening at the Houston Public Library is because it was the only place that would let people in for Free. We did not want anyone to be charged. I guess in these days and times, it might be difficult to believe that there are a few good people trying to do something good in this world. O1huthhes (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good bye !! O1huthhes (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on article author just wanted to commend O1huthhes for his/her civil manner in the face of peoples somewhat brash comments about their personal writing. it can be hard to maintain composure under such coldly objective critique but you took it in stride. and thanks for your efforts in understanding wiki policy. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced (well, almost) article on a living but non-notable writer. I found one reference, in a journal from 1993, that proves that once upon a time one of his books was published: that's it. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Figure of speech that gets exactly zero non-Wikipedia hits. Not in any way notable. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Road fails notability guidelines. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing here that doesn't belong on Australian federal election, 2010; seems to be a fork for expressing analysis and other WP:OR. Orange Mike | Talk 01:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, has two albums on an indie record that may or may not be considered "one of the more important" indie labels. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Musical artist, doesn't appear to be especially notable, none of the sources are useful and the creator repeatedly removes the blp prod, its already been deleted as blp prod once Jac16888Talk 00:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable sculptor. Lacks reliable third-party sources with significant coverage. See WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of prod-deleted material. Upcoming TV series with no indication of notability. Based on a notable video game, but per WP:NOTINHERITED not yet worthy of its own article. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced OR. Anything meaningful can go in another Cuban society article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. Main claim to notability is past president of Indian Institution of Engineers. Citation to support his position as "Director of the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute of India" has no mention of him. Article has been tagged for multiple issues, including inadequate sourcing and lack of notability, for three months. PROD tag removed with little improvement one month ago. Cresix (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Valid arguments were made which favor keeping, merging, and deleting. If this were a vote deletion has the most supporters, however the argument that we should in any way consider who created the article or coi editing as reasons to delete is an invalid argument and therefore weakened the case to delete. That is a problem, but not one that requires that we delete the article as a solution. If needed a discussion of an appropriate merge target can take place on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 16 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)) . |
I've looked at but rejected other possibilities for this page including merge into Gripe site as a good example, or merge into Royal Dutch Shell; the problem is that I think the site is actually not sufficiently notable. An effort has been made to establish notability, including references to the site from a reliable news source. There were previous WP:COI issues from contributor User:Johnadonovan which should be mentioned for context. I believe that the subject is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article, lack of (global) impact of the referenced leaks published on the site being my primary reason. Heroic attempt to establish notability with little real meat on the importance of the leaks mentioned suggests overblown page. Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
flash of inspiration It suddenly occurred to me that perhaps we should have an article on the two Donovans, with their sites as subsections. Quite a bit of the coverage seems to find their story interesting. I'm not suggesting a bio, but a page covering their relationship with shell, the impact of their site etc. Does that make sense?Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and refine I feel that the website is notable, despite its owner's malintent here on Wikipedia. However, fallout from the User:Johnadonovan-COI exposé is still evident in the article (e.g., the source Shellnews.net is owned by the Donovans). I am confident that another talented editor could refine the article to make sure it adheres more precisely to Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV). Regards —Eustress talk 05:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Weak consensus to merge/redirect but no consensus for a target Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only source for the article is another encyclopedia. Also, the article presumes that some people have supernatural visions of future events-- kind of an odd position for an encyclopedia to take. PStrait (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. The only coverage is a few paragraphs in a single article from the Sydney Morning Herald - far below our notability requirements. Has an element of WP:NOT#NEWS. Moreover, this is a negative BLP entry, where the standards for sourcing are required to be particularly stringent. Nsk92 (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems clear spam The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete this material. The challenge was that the article subject was not notable; the debate has found significant coverage in one reliable source, and has failed to reach consensus. One reliable source is one too few, so I would have no objection to an early renomination to AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I just don't think this band is notable. The article doesn't assert much. See related AfD discussion at Stress (album) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Longterm WP:GNG issues, unable to find sources except two or three articles by FP Muga II. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be non notable Neologism The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to WP:FANCRUFT Failing WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non-notable snack product. Earlier PROD was contested by the author, saying that there is "a precedent of a large collection of snack food articles on Wikipedia", which is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and this is in no way comparable to well-known Japanese snack brands such as Pocky or Umaibō, which clearly deserve self-standing articles. --DAJF (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Keyboard layout#Non-QWERTY keyboards for Latin scripts. PhilKnight (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be A non-noatable product The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a non-notable person the books in the bibliogrpahy seem to mostly be vanity press so obscure I can't find a website for it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a Non-notable Religous movement The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album from a probably not-notable band. See related AfD discussion at Stress (album) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album from a probably not-notable band. See related AfD discussion at Stress (album) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album from a probably not-notable band. See related AfD discussion at Stress (album) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]