![]() |
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
I don't think this person meets the notability guidelines. The coverage below (which substantiates that the person exists, but does not establish notability) doesn't do it, and there's nothing else out there. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability or reliable sources that demonstrate that notability. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability or reliable sources that demonstrate that notability. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability or reliable sources that demonstrate that notability LogicalFinance33 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Melissa Schuman#Lady Phoenix. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Group has never got off the ground. Article is horribly outdated. Sources are not reliable and/or do not establish notability of group. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable software product. Article has no credible references and notability is not asserted e.g. number of installations / user base. Biker Biker (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Note - this IP address has made no other contributions. --Neo139 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this IP address has made no other contributions.--Neo139 (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The mail address of the developer is CJSC "ISPsystem" RUSSIA, Irkutsk-17, P.O.B 30, 664017. In addition to the company employee that has responded, all three of the IP addresses that have responded to this AfD are registered in Irkutsk. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. No arguments for keeping in two weeks of dicussion. Michig (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BLP. Man of varied interests, but doesn't appear to be notable for any of them. Looks a lot like WP:PEACOCK WP:VANITY. Uncategorised. No WP:RS. Possible WP:COI noting similarity between original author and subject. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page has a collection of 5 generally unrelated studies:
So, to sum up all this longwinded explanation, this article should be merged/deleted as appropriate, then the original article should be deleted. Millermk90 (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, I'll remove some more unreferenced or promotionally minded stuff from the article. Max Semenik (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Artile is was created by sock puppet User:Projectmilap and has been blocked indefinitely. Also the artile is non referenced and raises major concern for wikipedia noteability criteria, the users are free to contribute and comment Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand the above should be Comment as I already nominiated it Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Important issue I want to raise is not about notability but sock puppet work User:Projectmilap and Nothing in the current article is with proper citation. The User who are willing to keep may consider contributing and adding references from where the information is coming. It raises a big concern of notability if the information references are not there in addition to stock puppets working for the company.Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Conveyor system. Term seems to be used, valid redirect. Jujutacular talk 14:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is basically an advertisement. - ComradeSlice(talk) 22:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Local shopping centre in regional town of New South Wales, no assertion of notability or significance. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible original research. Google search of local newspapers and government agencies did not produce reliable source for this material. Article also admits that this is an informal title for the wife of the vice president of the Philippines Lenticel (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Some of the arguments for keeping are weak but even discounting these there is still consensus is that the sources identified do constitute sufficient independent coverage to establish notability. Michig (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Not a notable journalist. The sources offered are Sun Media press releases or not independant, non-trivial, reliable sources. Contributor claims to be affiliated with Sun Media, so COI as well. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Davis Cup. Editors are free to merge relevant material from the edit history. Jujutacular talk 13:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary content fork. The format of Davis Cup is already sufficiently explained in the main article Davis_Cup#Format, which is not overly long. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: this content already exists in Fed_Cup#Format:
The result was redirect to Christian Action Network. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not-notable chairperson. Fails WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind talk 19:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. He is a major activist leader whose campaigns have received nationwide attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.6.52 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; lack of significant secondary coverage. AV3000 (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A passionate defense, but the consensus is clear.--Kubigula (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear too meet the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep nomination withdrawn by nominater. Sadads (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding cites, they are making a movie but at this time, for this BOOK, I don't see enough references to demonstrate it is notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I withdraw my AfD nomination, with my apologies. JFHJr (㊟) 05:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]
This subject passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. Notability within this BLP seems to be supported in part by allmusic.com, a source that is not reliable enough to base notability (see here). Otherwise, rather substantial coverage in the local Chad seems based heavily in publicity for an upcoming concert, and the Telegraph interview actually seems to cover a festival promoted by this subject, with most discussion about someone else entirely. A nomination for a biennial music award called "Musician of the Year" certainly does not on its own establish any notability. Though this might approach WP:BASIC requirements, I believe they fall short of demonstrating notability; the fact that this musician doesn't pass at all under WP:MUSICBIO, the most relevant BLP guideline, is particularly indicative of a musician's lack of notability. JFHJr (㊟) 20:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a student that does not demonstrate his notability. He started a small company while at college, but there is no evidence this is a notable company. He claims to have won several national and international competitions, but the only evidence for this shows his team came third in a local competition. He did rank 4th. in another student competition, but this appear to be a non-notable prize which he didn't win and the only reference is a passing mention in a local newspaper. Winning "best student of the year" at high school isn't notable. So the only claims that comes close to demonstrating notability are thin, and I don't think they pass WP:BIO. Prod contested without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 — 00:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for films. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Delete per the above.Nofatlandshark (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Prestige (disambiguation). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a term that is better suited for Wiktionary. While sources may be found on it, its likely not to have much more that wouldn't be found in a dictionary. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic content. We have Wiktionary for dictionary content. ∞陣内Jinnai 19:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 — 00:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While this company exists, I cannot find sufficient independent substantive RS coverage to indicate notability per wp standards. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient independent RS coverage of this service. Created by an SPA. The article has zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Complete lack of reliable sources is a strong argument for deletion. If the creator or someone else would like the article to be userfied so they can work on it, leave a message at my talk page. Hut 8.5 16:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable university organization. I was unable to find Googlenews hits for this organization, tho if 'Clock tower association' is an English translation of the organizations name I could see the issue. Page creator shares a name with the 'Patron in Chief' of the organization. Syrthiss (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this film/video company, which is an orphan article. Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Page currently linked from main page: Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Procedural_closure Jujutacular talk 19:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article smacks of recentism, and quite obviously should be deleted (and perhaps a bit merged in to Kim Jong-il, though what is there likely will suffice). I expect an outcry of outrage on this AfD that this is the most important article in the universe and that I must be crazy, with links to lots and lots of news sources. But the fact of it is that the article is almost entirely "Reactions" which aren't notable in any sense of the manner. Ask yourself if you think this article should exist in a year (it shouldn't) and I'm confident even if you all insist on keeping it now, it will be gone by then. Prodego talk 18:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted per G11 by Fastily (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No notability established in article and does not pass GNG; only references are to the magazine; COI:article created by DnSachs - founder of magazine is David N. Sachs GrainyMagazine (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i am nominating this for deletion as it is an unremarkable typhoon tracking centre who has had no independent coverage and is trying to get some publicity from us. It would probbably meet G7 as it is an unremarkable typhoon season but i felt it best to bring it to an AFD. Jason Rees (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. It's clear from the discussion below that a pretty extensive search for references has not produced evidence of notability. The only argument for retention is an assertion that all members of the Iranian royal family are notable which conflict with WP:NRVE. Hut 8.5 13:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. He is just the grandson of Shah's sister. It is not clear where or when he was born or if his grandmother's brother was still in power in Iran or not (Please Note that after 1979 Iranian revolution, the monarchy system was replaced by a republic one). AMERICOPHILE 17:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Would nominate for speedy were it not for the vague claims of "a great history" and such. But please, feel free to vote speedy if you think I'm in error. This is non-notable sports club for which even the article creator readily admits no newspaper coverage exists. Also note a history of deletion at Gogameri Cricket Club, Ajeetpura. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Michig (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:NFF which says. "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". This film has not even completed assembling a cast, let alone started production. In the event that this film does get off the ground, the release date is at least a year away. AussieLegend (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to verify that this person has played in a FIFA "A" international match (the match referenced in the article was not an official match) or at a fully-professional level. All coverage of this person appears to be general coverage of the 12 people who sought assylum and only the most trivial mention (his name) is made. Earlier attempts at speedy deletion and proposed deletion were declined primarily because it was asserted that he's played for Eritrea (although no one has verified that he's played an official match). Jogurney (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Kissing Girls (2nd nomination)
The result was delete. v/r - TP 16:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. No independent, reliable press coverage. An IP removed the prod, claiming "Gifted But Twisted in a well established underground punk band, they have over 2.5 million views on youtube and have sold close to 300,000 songs on itunes, therefore deserving a wikipedia page" but obviously neither of those claims signifies notability. TM 16:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 16:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article content is so low quality and confused that it can not be salvaged. The topic itself is not notable or encyclopedic, and is better suited for a "how to" programmer's guide. I am beginning to clean up the cluster and distributed computing articles, and this type of alphabet soup is just embarrassing for Wikipedia. There are several like this, someone put text there 5 years ago, mostly confused and a liability, not an asset. This junk has to go before the whole series on Computer clustering can be cleaned up.
And unfortunately Wikipedia content is now being used to the detriment of science by irresponsible publications like this which just repackage the alphabet soup in these articles, then add an ISBN and a nice cover. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Computer cluster. Article history left intact for credit / merging purposes. Jujutacular talk 13:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is on the wrong side of the notability line and is not encyclopedic. The text is confused and useless. I am beginning to clean up the cluster and distributed computing articles, and this type of alphabet soup is just embarrassing for Wikipedia. There are several like this, someone put text there 5 years ago, mostly confused and a liability, not an asset. This junk has to go before the whole series on Computer clustering can be cleaned up.
And unfortunately Wikipedia content is now being used to the detriment of science by irresponsible publications like this which just repackage the alphabet soup in these articles, then add an ISBN and a nice cover. History2007 (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Consensus is to keep this although it needs work to turn it into a decent article.Michig (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable essay. No refs. google shows lots of copies of the essay, but no discussion/criticism. I suspect, but have no proof, that the creator is the author of the essay, based on the creator's username, (FemiAmeriPoet), and the description of the author in the article (American feminist, poet, teacher, and writer) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable software, article created by software author. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The library is widely used in the scientific community. See similar projects as scikit-learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidealbanese (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that mlpy is a machine learning software as weka, Shogun toolbox, Orange and scikit-learn... Davidealbanese —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
In the international repository of machine learning open source software http://mloss.org , the mlpy library is 3th by number of views (25490) and 4th by number of downloads (4892) on 360 software projects. See https://mloss.org/software/views/ and https://mloss.org/software/downloads/ . --Davidealbanese (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References added --Davidealbanese (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article indicates the author won awards for the novels; however, there is no support for the awards. The books appear to be self-published. Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. reddogsix (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Demographics of Atlanta article contains almost no additional information versus the Demographics section of the main Atlanta page (Atlanta#Demographics). The sole exception is a list of population by year over time, but this is just turning the historic population table into prose - which has no added value - and there are a few random facts about points in time when the city limits were increased. I would be glad to have a separate article on Demographics of Atlanta if there were any value added in it. However, its current existence as merely a "mirror" of what is in Atlanta#Demographics just makes those two pages out of sync and creates false expectations for users who might navigate to the Demographics article that there might be more information here. Keizers (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's been a while since I've participated in AfD, so forgive me if I'm hazy on AfD criteria.
I notice that some cities have daughter articles entitled "Demographics of (cityname)". Perhaps it's appropriate for Atlanta to have one as well. The bulky tables and demographic details can be shunted off to the Demo article (see, for example, Demographics of New York City. As Mmann suggests, the article can grow over time. The main article on Atlanta would include just a brief encapsulation of ATL demographics. I'd suggest leaving "black mecca" in the summary within the Atlanta article as I suspect that it's an important topic and will merit its own article (Atlanta and African-American Culture or something like that?)
I'm hoping that the two involved editors can come to an amicable meeting of the minds. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 16:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable product, declined prod, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of passing GNG or PORNBIO. JoshyDinda (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. causa sui (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding much to indicate this person is notable; charitable intentions don't obviate the need to demonstrate notability The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)The result was delete. While there are reviews which establish that the book exists, it has been pointed out that the reviews have borderline notability under our inclusion criteria. It is possible that the book will generate enough reviews in more mainstream publications to meet our inclusion criteria, and at that point the article can be accepted on Wikipedia. The consensus among established Wikipedia members is that the article does not meet our inclusion criteria - the keep comments from the majority of the IP accounts have not been considered as, despite the accounts tracing to different locations in the world, there is a credible suspicion that they are sockpuppet accounts. I am willing to WP:Userfy the article on request. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Sources cited for article universally fail WP:RS rules. Having a long list of bad sources (mere personal blogs, the author's/publisher's website, etc.) only fools people who glance at the list into thinking it is notable instead of displaying any true notability.
The write up is essentially a vanity piece quoting the author's own thoughts on his work for long paragraphs, citing reviews he gave to nonnotable blogs. Reviews of just some people off the street who happen to have their own blogs are also referenced. A couple of sources are blue links to Wikipedia articles, but these are inevitably to publications that themselves fail Wikipedia notability requirements, such as The Future Fire (no reliable sources). There is a mention that some more mainstream sources reviewed it favorably, but the only source is the puiblisher's website and not the publications in question, and even if these actually happened they would have to be more than mere mentions to meet the nontrivial coverage requirements.
Most importantly, however, this book dramatically fails the threshold standards as described at Wikipedia:NBOOK#Threshold_standards, in which at a bare minimum any book that wants a Wikipedia article must be present in a dozen or more libraries. Worldcat shows only two libraries in the world have a copy of this publication. It is already several months past its release and therefore extremely unlikely that a number of other libraries will ever stock it. This book therefore fails our most basic criteria for inclusion and must be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When this entry was previously suggestion for deletion, I was asked to provide sources to support the article, so these I have threaded into it - from reviews and interviews with the author. If these were incorrectly done, I apologize and would appreciate clear advice on how the "clean up" the article to make it perfect for Wikipedia standards. I can't seem to get a clear understanding from Wikipedia instructions as to how I've missed the point.
Hold your horses, you two (above). I'm reading too much emotion from both ends with regard to the debate about whether this article is worthy - or not. I believe Alsation23 and DreamGuy make pertinent points. I therefore believe the article should have the author's own thoughts on his work removed to satisfy the concerns of DreamGuy, and have done so in the article. Of course Alsation23 can contest this if not in agreement. I have also removed some review quotes from personal blogs but left in the ones that I believe related to reputable sources. After some research I found that the review attributed to Guy Salvidge, mentioned on the article but linked to the reviewer's personal blog, was also published on the credible website Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus (http://aussiespecficinfocus.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat/); I have therefore corrected this attribution in the article. Re: The threshold standards as described at Wikipedia:NBOOK#Threshold_standards, I note that there is a disclaimer point: 'There will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards'. These are a guideline, but not a rule. The review comments have also been amended by myself. Again Alsation23 can challenge this with suitable evidence/information. I do believe we can keep the review comments from print magazines Farrago, Beat and Lip Magazine, and the additional comments from websites Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews and Upstart would appear suitable as they are not simple blogs but news sites. To my mind Verbicide is also attributable. I notice from the publisher's site for the book that the praise from The Age and Radio National is attributable to one person, Patricia Maunder, and have amended this accordingly. This can be removed if inappropriate. Otherwise I believe the article meets notability standards with the references that remain. My vote: KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.236.76.85 (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Mainstream popularity and availability in libraries does not a good book make. Out of interest, have you taken the time to read any of the book DreamGuy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.247 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
KEEP - "This was one of the more memorable books of the year." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.73.28 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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.[1]" (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability)(Forgive me, this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia, and I am doing so out of a perceived timely necessity.) It is my opinion that this entry fulfills this guideline.
Part of the 'problem' given in regards to this book being given its own topic was, "A couple of sources are blue links to Wikipedia articles, but these are inevitably to publications that themselves fail Wikipedia notability requirements, such as The Future Fire (no reliable sources)." Being the person who reviewed Tobacco-Stained Mountain Goat for The Future Fire, it pains me to say that yes, the Wikipedia page on The Future Fire is, indeed, lacking and does not live up to the guidelines ... however, I have seen nowhere here that says that quotes from places who do not have their own Wikipedia page cannot be used; therefor, even if TFF's own topic page does fall to deletion, I see no reason why this should spell the demise of the entry for Tobacco-Stained Mountain Goat, nor even to a link to the review itself rather than to a Wikipedia entry about the site. Unfortunately, you will just have to take my word for it that I am not simply fishing for links to my article ... reject that if you must, but realize that if I were fishing for publicity for TFF, I would likely be doing so by defending TFF's page, not this one. It is still no reason for this book to not have its own page. "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation." (Again, Wikipedia's Notability page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.87.92 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Reviewed Wikipedia WP:NOTABILITY and as discussed there is more than enough significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.236.76.85 (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is beside the point, which remains notability. Once again DreamGuy paints down the arguments (above) with the blanket comment "Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications do not count", ignoring the fact that some of the sources are PRINT MEDIA (not websites), and some of the websites that are cited - Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews, Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus and Upstart - are NOT "Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications". If you have an axe to grind, please do it with more class - and better arguments. This is frustrating stuff.Alsation23 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, I'm sorry I got on my soapbox, too. Frustration speaking! But I still hold that the quotes we have kept are fine given the sources (PRINT media & DECENT websites as outlined in my previous annotation). Thankyou.Alsation23 (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://savannahnow.com/share/blog-post/elizabeth-white/2011-12-18/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-andrez-bergen-book-review#.Tu5XwkpV4vp, St. Augustine Record (St. Augustine, Florida, USA) http://staugustine.com/interact/blog-post/elizabeth-white/2011-12-18/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-andrez-bergen-book#.Tu5YC0pV4vp, The Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville, Florida, USA) http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/458407/elizabeth-white/2011-12-18/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-andrez-bergen-book, and Bluffton Today (Bluffton, South Carolina) http://www.blufftontoday.com/blog-post/elizabeth-white/2011-12-18/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-andrez-bergen-book-review#.Tu5Xu0pV4vp. I think you might agree that these are not "Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications".Alsation23 (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, Sionk!Alsation23 (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm getting completely confused. Some people are saying delete, some keep; some say the article fulfills WP:BK and others don't. Now there's jargon like "socking or meat-puppeting" - what on earth is that? It would be nice if you gave more information to people not as experienced in Wikipedia, Cameron Scott. In fact this whole experience has been very disillusioning thanks to some people - as Sionk mentioned, I've been asking for help and advice all along, and instead I get the cold shoulder and calls to delete all the work. What's the point? Sorry, but couldn't people be more collaborative and helpful, patient and nurturing with this stuff? What is the desperate need to delete things without investing any effort? I think I might as well give up on Wikipedia here and now. Alsation23 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after a good night's sleep I haven't given up on Wikipedia quite yet! Sorry about the rant yesterday. Now I also understand about sock and meat puppeting (although I'm not sure how it relates to the point here, but fair enough). I hope we can settle this properly, to everyone's satisfaction - though it's quite probable that some people (DreamGuy?) will beg to disagree. Anyway, out of all the above haggling, let me round-up:
Thanks for the reboot for further discussion, but I do think all the asides about "meat puppeting" detract from this intention. Now that I actually get the gist of what meat puppets means, it's unproven here and a little beside the point. I don't agree that "the only sources and reviews fail WP:RS", especially now I've had a read of that section and it stipulates: "The reliability of a source depends on context." WP:NBOOK also does not require reviews in "major newspapers". I think the problem here is that different people read differing things between the lines of these Wikipedia guidelines, and we can keep going in circles. There may well be major newspaper reviews of this novel - I've only submitted the ones I've found online. Unless we contact the author/publisher directly, we'll never know - but the sources that we do have a re more than appropriate - to reiterate: Some of the sources (Farrago, Beat, Lip Magazine) are PRINT MEDIA publications (ie. not websites), and some of the websites that are cited (Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews, Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus, St. Augustine Record, The Florida Times-Union and Upstart) are independent, reputable online sources. Can we try to be proactive here instead of focusing on puppetry and deletion? I'd really, really appreciate more help. If this fails, I'm giving up on Wikipedia. Thanks anyway, to people like Sionk and Gaijin42. Alsation23 (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Mercurywoodrose, you are incorrect about Another Sky Press being a Vanity press which, according to the link you give here, is "a publishing house that publishes books at the author's expense." In the interviews/articles I have read about the publisher while researching this article, and having just looked over their website again just now, it is quite clear that they are an independent publisher but certainly NOT a Vanity press. There's absolutely no mention of taking money from authors to publish their books - unless you're privy to information I haven't comes across? If so, please share. Otherwise it would seem to detract from the issue here, which is, I thought what Tigershark noted when s/he relisted this debate: "discussion is, and should be, whether the sources are reliable, and that further focused discussion on that may enable this to reach a clearer consensus." Again we boil down to the perception of notability of the sources we have. While I agree there is no major newspaper publication review (at least that I have found while researching the article), in this day and age this would not surprise me as major newspapers review books from major publishing houses as these pay for advertizing at said newspapers. Independents are rarely covered. That said, we have an array of media coverage as previously discussed (above) and it's this that we should look at rather than meat puppets or vanity press. We already have a few differences of opinion, but it would be great to stay on topic. Alsation23 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To wrap up - on subject - I think Sionk best hit the nail on the head (above):
I wouldn't call it bludgeoning but trying to put a light on things that may otherwise be unclear to new people wading through this - like yourself, Dennis. It's also undesirable to have someone throw the focus on "meat puppets" rather than the issue of sources, but to each their own. To be honest I think I've had enough of the cantankerous approach of some people (including my own) in this season to be jolly. Merry Christmas, mates. If you choose to delete this article, so be it. Then I'm personally finished with Wikipedia as well, but c'est la vie. Alsation23 (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Despite SPAs, Etroia has made a solid keep argument that has been supported by two other established editors. Whether or not to merge the article into the University can be discussed on the article's talk page. v/r - TP 16:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Toddst1 is right that lack of coverage of a specific industry is not a free pass. Although Ebikeguy's rationale is a bit stronger, it still fails to address the requirement for multiple sources and that doesn't even touch whether or not the particular source given counts as significant coverage about the subject. v/r - TP 16:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN aesthetician. While the Globe & Mail article does mention him, it clearly minimizes his impact on the industry, characterizing him as "work doggedly behind the scenes." and that he's an expat is the focus of the article, not his accomplishments in his field. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to DJ Food. v/r - TP 16:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable album. contested prod. no references Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 16:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that there was some back-and -forth editing on this article over the question of whether this is a legitimate accrediting agency or not. However, my search indicated a more significant problem: Is this a notable organization? I was not able to find much in the way of reliable sources that aren't press releases, and without reliable sources, there's no way to verify which of the various parties editing this article is correct. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Note to (and about) sockpuppets and meatpuppets: Attention is called to this passage from WP:GAFD:
Since at least two of the apparent puppets (whether of the textile or flesh-and-blood variety) who have disrupted this discussion gone so far as to identify themselves on their userpages by their (purported) real-life identities, it's fair to further draw attention to the followign from WP:COI ("conflict of interest"):
EEng (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was RESULT = Speedy Keep. Vrenator talk 14:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No references, nothing to indicate notability other than the statement "one of the leaders in this market" Vrenator talk 10:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about Financial Times, 11 Dec 2011, Petrol Plaza, 13 Dec 2011, Reuters, 12 Dec 2011 (which values Tokheim at $535 million) and Forecourt Trader, 17 June 2011 announcing that "Tokheim has been selected as a global supplier of fuel dispensers for Shell service stations." Loads more sources from a simple Google search. I'm happy to begin to rewrite, expand, reference the article if AfD is cancelled. Emeraude (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, extraordinary claim: a wave faster than light? User has also inserted dubious things into Quantum Teleportation TheMaster17 (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Due to consensus to delete in the other AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like funcruft, does not add value to Stritctly Come Dancing or to the individual songs. Looks remarkably much like List of songs used on Strictly Come Dancing Night of the Big Wind talk 10:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, I moved List of Songs Used on Strictly Come Dancing to List of songs used on Strictly Come Dancing to fix the capitalization. However, I accidentally undid that with my next edit - guess I forgot to refresh AWB before saving. My vote is either that the former gets merged into the latter and then becomes a redirect again, or they both get deleted. Sorry for causing the problem. GoingBatty (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Blatant WP:NOT violation, has a snowball's chance in hell, so I'm going to live dangerously, ignore all rules and delete this now rather than wait a week and come to exactly the same result. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is 100% original research and POV--it explicitly states that its goal is to "raise awareness" of what the author believes are systemic problems in the UK government. Article was previously prodded, but prod was removed by original author without explanation. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Michig (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This PR company's paucity of RS coverage suggests a lack of notability. Created by SPA. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Userfying for future use by Nima Farid. v/r - TP 15:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While there is precedent for lists of bus routes, individual bus routes need to be very exceptional to earn an article... and this just seems to be another route in the (possibly notable) system. - Delete - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. v/r - TP 15:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble finding RS coverage of this artist, whose article has zero refs and has been tagged as an orphan for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect, which I just completed (closing without objection). Neutralitytalk 05:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This college of business at UNC at Charlotte is currently 1) is unreferenced, 2) reads like a big old promotion for prospective students and 3) Fails WP:GNG. The only coverage I could find was that the Charlotte Business Journal had a networking event there (but this is not really independent) and that they offered a graduate program in real estate. These articles provide minimal coverage. Furthermore, the college does not inherit notability from the university. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined a speedy G3-hoax tag on this article because it's actually a WP:MADEUP violation. However, it was already a contested prod by the time I got there, so here we are. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. per sourcing by Carrite v/r - TP 15:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable actress and singer. The claim that she was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize as a member of the group 1000 PeaceWomen is supported by a press release. Note that nominations for Nobel Prizes are sealed for 50 years from the year of nomination, so this claim cannot be substantiated. Basinet's music career is not notable. Basinet's film career is not notable. Basinet is apparently only notable for recording a version of a very often recorded Christmas song which people mistakenly believe is sung by Marilyn Monroe (although I suspect that this is likely something put forward by her publicist rather than a general misconception). It may be informative to check the sources used.
The article has been deleted several times and is salted to prevent re-creation (this version was created in an apparent response to a request made on IRC). Basinet has been regularly and repeatedly added to Santa Baby by single purpose accounts for literally years now. See Talk:Santa Baby for previous discussion about Basinet. Note that one of the images on the current article is a copyright violation. Note that the creator of the article, User:Lambano Blosko is a single purpose account whose edits all relate to Basinet. Note that although this version of the article was moved from User:Lambano Blosko/Cynthia Basinet, there also exists a version created 19 December in User:Naruki09/sandbox. Note that although User:Naruki09 registered and made two edits in 2006, they took a 5 year hiatus before returning to become another single purpose Basinet-promoting account. Note also the contributions of User:68.175.21.168, a single purpose IP account. There's a reason that this BLP reads like poorly written PR copy... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Post-After Comment: Molon labe! meaning "Come [and] take [them]!", is a classical Greek expression of defiance which roughly corresponds to the modern equivalent English phrase "over my dead body". Since user Lambano Blosko's involvement, and indeed identity, have come into question in regard to this article, it would be advisable to note that "Molon" is the aorist active participle of the Greek verb "blosko" meaning "having come". Whereas, "labe" is the aorist active imperative of the verb "lambano" meaning "take [them]." Lambano Blosko is a user whose English is sub-par (evidence by past edits and summaries) and who has only recently joined Wikipedia and has almost entirely focused his/her activity on helping the Cynthia Basinet article. The username in fact literally proclaims "Over my dead body!" in Greek to the editors and admins who would suggest the article be deleted. Five Point Lexicon (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced affair that looks remarkable like List of Songs Used on Strictly Come Dancing. Merging enough or is one of them a hoax? Night of the Big Wind talk 03:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N, also unreferenced BLP. Zlqchn (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was discussion obsolete Hekerui (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
article is merely promotional, no criterion of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG met Hekerui (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i think these information are correct , this person is beongs to a hindustani classical genere.i think Wikipedia shouldn't remove this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.116.112 (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC) i know this artist and the information given is correct and useful . and i suggest remove this page from deletion wikipedia must not remove this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.91.202 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Pandit santosh joshi is an Indian Classical singer of Bikaner's Joshi gharana.i request not to delete this article[reply]
Keep I've copy-edited the article, which does have sources (in Hindi). Joshi appears to be a major exponent of classical Hindustani vocals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i am agree with all of you.pandit santosh is a lead classical singer of joshi gharana in present scenario of indian classical world. he is such a superb singer and a lead light of indian classical's Joshi gharana.i heard many audio's and you tube videos of pt.santosh ji. he is marvelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapanasinger (talk • contribs)
The result was redirect to List of My Little Pony characters#Earth Ponies. v/r - TP 15:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting this to be deleted. Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nominator did not advance an argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think its better this whole thing would be merged. Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect (without objection). Neutralitytalk 20:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources or information pointing to any notability. Would probably be better suited for a cookbook than an encyclopedia. DaffyBridge (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]