The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable hobby. Claims notability in French media, but the two links provided seem to just be postings of the video on French websites as well as a YouTube link. Google searches have turned up little. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 23:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. The nominator withdrew, the AFD was properly closed and then reopened 3 days after the fact. The proper thing to do in cases like this is to renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This language doesn't meet the general notability guideline. It is an academic language, with only one cited-paper, according to the ACM digital library. Even then, one paper with 15 citations isn't enough to establish notability for an academic project, and it doesn't have any other coverage. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my reasoning here Throwaway85 (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be that the single paper has "only" been cited 15 times, it has also been cited recently in a 2009 journal paper. Nevertheless, the current Alma-0 Wikipedia article should be improved by describing the features in more detail. --ShinNoNoir (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep per point #1 of that guideline (Nominator withdrew their nomination and no one else has !voted Delete). (Non-admin closure) Cybercobra (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This language does not meet the general notability guideline. Here's what I found on a search:
Two extremely-poorly-cited papers don't establish notability from an academic standpoint, and two articles by "Stevan Apter of no stinking loops" isn't reliable and independent coverage from multiple sources. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my reasoning here Throwaway85 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The only person arguing for deletion is the nominator. There appear to be some useful leads in the comments/keeps which might be worth following up and using to improve the article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looked over the provided link in the article (google scholar search) gave 10 results, and I noticed only one source to be somewhat relevant, although that source can't be trustworthy in that matter, as such definition should appear in other mainstream dictionaries. Others include such as this. Doesn't seem to have any weight, most likely it's just known amongst some norwegian street groups who refer to immigrants that are from these countries in such a way. Libelous article, and I have no doubt "kebab" here isn't used in a good sense. Let alone that it bears no encyclopedic value rather than an attack to a group of immigrants (I don't think Kurds, Arabs, Pashtuns, Persians, Punjabis, Turks are fancying this term being referred to them) and the article is just so short (and has 4 contributed edits, mainly by the creator of this article) which are minor per se, as being said - the article is very short). Maybe it will fit into some special related article, but definitely not as a separate one. On a sidenote: If the author haven't tried to apply this term as if it's an official term there, in Norway, I would take it as some mad joke. Userpd (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unsourced, cobbled toghter glorified table of contents for a book. I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia isn't for glorified tables of contents. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proper solution is to tag the article as needing more detail, some kind of link to a wikipedia noTOC policy, and then wait. deleting the whole thing is less good of a solution. there are dozens of secondary source commentaries on Bulfinch's mythology, im sure a fine article can be written about it based on them alone. Decora (talk)
as for 'no TOC' policy:
Articles with tables of contents:
Articles full of trivia with no explanation of significance:
etc etc etc.
Decora (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another tiny local Alaska village airline with no notability. What appear to be solid sources such as the Washington Post mention the existence of this airline but do not have even a single word of content beyond verifying its existence. Essential Air Service contracts do not confer automatic notability either, there are hundreds of such contracts in Alaska because there are hundreds of remote settlements off the road system. This is an "air taxi/flightseeing" operation, it does not even appear to operate scheduled flights. Previous AFD was argued into a "no consensus" result by users who were making up new notability criteria on the spot. As a result of that and other discussions a new guideline, or lack thereof, was established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Notability. WP:CORP and WP:N are therefore the relevant guides, and this fails them both, all coverage is of a trivial or directory-style nature. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The consensus is that the article should be kept and moved to KITCO. However, KITCO redirects to Kitco India, so I am going to keep it there - if anyone feels strongly that it should be a KITCO with the redirect being from Kitco India to KITCO, then feel free to go to Requested moves PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No pages link to it apart from a redirect and it has COI issues Aaabbccz Talk Contribs 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see that there is no reasons for the page to delete as per the policies I know about of Wikipedia. Here is comment that he searched the net and got only http://kitco.com Why don't he go down the page and see the http://kitco.in link. The first one is bullion company and http://kitco.in is a public sector technical consultancy firm in India. I wrote the page not to promote the company, but to inform about the activities of the Government organisation. About the COI issue, I think it is far better for some one from the company (like me) to write about it so that the facts will be accurate. And I thought what Wikipedia care more about is accuracy. Jacob universe - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobkitco (talk • contribs) 09:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After scouring through Google, as well as Google Books, it appears that references to this alleged massacre are by and large found on websites related to the denial of the Armenian Genocide. The two sources cited in the article make this clear enough. The first one, whose title in Turkish translates to Armenian Issue, is an un-academic website whose sole objective is to refute the factual nature of the Armenian Genocide. Going against scholarly consensus, it alleges that the Armenian people massacred Turks during the World War I years; those massacres were consequently followed up by the deportation of the Armenian people from the Ottoman Empire. In much the same vein, this website and now this article puts forward the allegation that the Turks living in the village were subjected to massacres by the hands of the Armenians. But because of its dubious nature, and because scholars have recognized a pattern in which the actual perpetrators of the crime portray themselves as the victims and label the latter as the true culprits, it seems to me that this website cannot at all be regarded as a reliable source.
Indeed, the cited link here makes it clear that the monument built by the municipal authorities of Igdir was designed specifically "to give a similar answer to those declaring the 24th April as the genocide day and to the monuments erected in many places of the world for the genocide alleged to have been perpetrated against the Armenians." On the Igdir article, in the section devoted to the genocide monument, there are several sources which make it clear the monument was erected to commemorate the perpetrators themselves. That is, in order to give an absolve the Turkish state of any responsibility for the Armenian Genocide, they have decided to turn the tables on the victims. If anything, the general region of Igdir was where thousands of Armenians perished during the winter of 1918-19 and during the Turkish invasion of 1920, when it was part of the Republic of Armenia (see this contemporary article written by a journalist for National Geographic in 1919 for more).
All of which brings us back to Oba. There certainly was a village or town by the name near Igdir back in 1919 but very little information exists on it. The second source only speaks about a film crew from al Jazeera going to record a documentary on the event. While this is a slightly improved source, it still poses new questions regarding neutrality, even more so since it is coming from a Turkish newspaper which always refer to the Armenian Genocide as an alleged event. Al Jazeera in the past has also picked up on this denial line and I think, in this case, its sole presence here would be very problematic. If this article is to be maintained, we need to find sources written by third-party sources or authors who have a more or less dispassionate interest in the matter. This necessarily means that we exclude sources from the Ottoman Empire and its successor the modern Turkish Republic, since they are ideologically bent to deny that no Armenians died from any state-devised policy and, if anything, the Armenians were responsible for their own destruction and culpable of crimes committed agains the native Muslim peoples. A light skim through the Armenian Genocide and Denial of the Armenian Genocide articles are, therefore, necessary for understanding the situation and evaluating what sources are acceptable and those which are not.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources in this article;Fails WP:GNG with a lack of secondary sources. Ingadres (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG with a lack of secondary sources. TM 18:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NN company Aaabbccz (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that this is a neologism. Should it ever be used more commonly, other than the website of the same name, then it can be recreated PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Article about a new word, which seems to be used in two distinct senses:
Only sources cited are the BBAA site and "www.diversism.com". Both these websites brought me warning flags from Zonealarm: "This website is suspicious. Leave now unless you know this site is safe," possibly because they were only set up on 20 Nov 2010 and 9 Feb 2011 respectively.
Per WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term... Neologisms... for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia."
A search finds links back to the BBAA, and various other people using the word in various ways, but no secondary sources, nor any indication that any specific use is solidly enough established to satisfy WP:NEO and be the basis of a Wikipedia article. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC) But she is a very nice woman.[reply]
The result was keep. The nominator has withdrawn so there's no arguments for deletion aside from one !voter. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 19 February 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)) . |
This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. As sources, I found:
Not good enough for establishing notability. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that this article should be deleted. The argument is that there is no independent work about this language, or evidence that anyone other than the creator. Should it be cited in independent academic works, or evidence found that it is being taught by anyone other than the creator (or his representatives), or that it has been written about by anyone other than the creator, then it can be recreated PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. I count 3 academic papers about the language in the ACM digital library, but they are all by the language creator, and they have each been cited 0 times. On Google, there are a couple of blogs or forum posts, but nothing even close to what is necessary to establish notablity. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The main argument for keeping this article appears to be "someone has nominated a lot of articles for deletion", which as far as I am aware is not a valid reason for keeping this article. The sources provided have been refuted by the 'delete's as being authored by the creator of the language, and so not independent. The ones which are not written by him are disputed as useable as they are not about Y but about peephole optimisation. However, I would like to commend Throwaway85 for finding the sources, as I feel that this is more effective in argument than just saying "someone shouldn't nominate lots of articles for deletion', especially when at least one of those people used the precise-same-wording in their opposes for all of them! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. The one source I could find was the author's original publication on the language in '81, which according to the ACM digital library has 10 citations. For a paper from 30 years ago, 10 citations is an awfully low number, so I don't think one could use an academic argument for this source establishing notability. Regardless, one source doesn't count as multiple instances of independent coverage. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deleting information en masse is never a good idea. If the article really shouldn't be here, I'm sure someone else will nom it. CM should probably chill out on the spree. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, esp. as it relates to peephole optimization, and has a historical context within that purpose. It would make sense to incorporate it within the peephole optimization article with a redirect leading to that, but I do not have the time to do the editing atm. Until someone does, it should be a keep. Nodekeeper (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unlike all the other articles that have been nominated by Christopher, because as it is now this microstub is useless. If reborn, it should be mentioned in the article on peephole optimization. --balabiot 09:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 19 February 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)) . |
Deleted as uncontroversial and undeleted by request. The term is defined by the Marine Software Engineering Cluster of Excellence, the subject of another AfD, and does not meet the general notability guideline. Article is unreferenced. I was unable to locate independent, secondary sources. Single mentions in Google Books and Google Scholar are in name only. Google News results are all to "Marine Software Engineering Cluster of Excellence." Pnm (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marine Software Engineering is used by a fast growing open source community in the marine sector. The article is being improved by the whole community and already meets clearly the requirements in the general notability guideline. Being a personal user I am surprised on how this community driven initiative is treated. If anyone thinks the article is spammy I would suggest that the person improves the article. Teakboy42 (talk) — Teakboy42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any sources specifically covering the seating in airports. Ironholds (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably self-promotion by Senthilk80 (talk · contribs). I don't see how this meets WP:ANYBIO. bender235 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nn puffpiece with COI issues Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
interesting guy, but nothing that suggests notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Closing as "keep" because there is a consensus that the subject passes WP:GNG and the fact that one of the "delete" !voters is conceding that she may barely pass WP:NTENNIS. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Tennis notabilty as per here KnowIG (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep the content somewhere. There's a consensus that this should be merged but no consensus for a target. What to merge and where is a subject for the article's talkpage so there's nothing more that can be done here. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike, Ingsoc, which has considerable scholarship focusing on it, the idea of Inner Party in relationship to Orwell, is usually in mention of themes in Orwell's works. As far as I can tell from a google Scholar search, the term does not have larger repurcussions on scholarship except in the context of terms related to Orwell, and studies of the social structure of 1984. A merge might be appropriate, but it certainly doesn't warrant it's own page. Sadads (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice. Nominator's rationale is sound but I really think we need more then one view to call this a "consensus" so I'll treat this as an uncontested PROD and restore in on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to fail WP:WEB. Current sourcing consists of no reliable sources, and a whole bunch of primary sources, forum threads, and people's forum profiles. A search online and on Highbeam Research yielded nothing in the way of non-trivial reliable sources to demonstrate sufficient notability to retain the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable writer. The references are all self-referential. Does not meet basic WP:BIO or WP:RS requirements. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a CV instead of an encyclopedia article. Falls far from the basic requirements of WP:BIO. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
</noinclude>
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor fictitious character. (PROD was removed by IP editor with no explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod, following which the biography now carries basic references. However there is no indication that the subject meets the notability guidelines for artists. AllyD (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Reintroduction. While there is certainly no consensus for deletion below, neither are there any rationales presented that the topic of "rewilding" is at all different from that described at Reintroduction or elsewhere. Because of this, Rewilding (Carnivores) likely should not have its own page, but can be covered with a few additions at Reintroduction. A merger should be discussed at Talk:Reintroduction, but is not required. lifebaka++ 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not by itself appear to be a notable topic. It did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion because it contains mergeable content, which might go to several other articles: Rewilding (conservation biology), Reintroduction, Save China's Tigers, and Translocation (wildlife conservation). Reviewing the Rewilding (conservation biology) article and its citations and searching for the term "rewilding" on Google Books, it is apparent that by far the most widespread use of the term "rewilding" is with the meaning indicated in the Rewilding (conservation biology) article, applying to the managed alteration of an entire ecosystem. The meaning promoted by the creator of the Rewilding (Carnivores) article, User:China's Tiger, referring to animals bred in captivity being released into the wild, appears to be primarily used by one organization, the Save China's Tigers project. Any prominence of this use of the term in general Google searches or elsewhere on Wikipedia seem to result from vigorous promotional efforts on the part of that project, which have included User:China's Tiger introducing substantial mention of the project and many links to the organization's web site in many Wikipedia articles such as the main Tiger article. See also the talk page statement by another user who has contributed to several related conservation topics, Caroline Fraser, Ph.D.. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia Administrators:
It is unfortunate indeed that an individual has successfully orchestrated a lengthy campaign to repeatedly alter Wikipedia’s page on ‘Rewilding’ and that it is now being considered for deletion.
It does not take a doctorate in literature to do a search on ‘Rewilding’ and realize that the word has 3 significant past and current usages, that are well expressed on the Wikipedia’s existing Rewilding disambiguation page:
Rewilding may refer to:
· Rewilding (species), the rehabilitation process of animals, especially predators into the wild
· Rewilding (conservation biology), the return of habitats to a natural state
· Rewilding (anarchism), the reversal of human "domestication"
These three usages have major and obvious distinctions evidenced by rewilding’s usage in conservation biology (or ecology). For instance, the controversial ‘Pleistocene Rewilding’ proposal where large areas of North American wilderness would see the introduction of elephants, camels, zebras, lions and cheetahs as a part of large-scale (regional) act of ecological ‘restoration’. This is substantively different from its meaning in reference to the rewilding of endangered species.
I would like to recapitulate the history of our attempt to introduce the rewilding (species) concept to Wikipedia readers substantiated by the Discussion and History pages. We initiated the Rewilding page because many people were interested in the concept of rewilding captive carnivores. Ms. Fraser, who has repeatedly deleted and altered our entries in a diligent attempt to expunge any usage other than its conservation biology usage, has also deleted links to pages on Save China’s Tigers website which elaborated on the rewilding process of tigers as ”properly belong under rubric of wildlife rehabilitation and reintroduction”. In recognition of this usurpation of the page’s original intent, we created a new page: Rewilding - species, (later changed to Rewilding - carnivore), to reflect a distinct and prevalent contemporary usage of the word. Again, this new page was repeatedly altered by Ms. Fraser, contesting the word’s usage in anything other than her narrow (conservation biology) definition and inviting us to get our own page!
I believe that Wikipedia prides itself in expressing all aspects of a subject or word, including its vernacular, alternative and contemporary usage and is not confined to a word’s sometimes esoteric or elitist academic expression. I am not an etymologist, but I would venture to guess that ‘rewilded’ is a composite of the prefix ‘re’ (again), and ‘wild’ - clearly an obvious modern colloquial usage to express the concept “made wild again”. Further, the process of rewilding species has been going on for some time such as Billy Arjan Singh’s reintroducing of captive-bred tigers and leopards in India in 1978 for which he was recognized by the conservation community.
Besides the rewilding of South China tigers by Save China’s Tigers, the process, and the term ‘rewilding’, is being used for a number of species conservation projects including: cheetahs (Cheetah Conservation Fund, Madhya Pradesh State, India, Sir Baniyas Island Carnivore Project), leopards (De Wildt Cheetah and Wildlife Trust, WVI's Amur Leopard Project, giant pandas (China Panda Breeding Technology Committee), cougars (Cougar Rewilding Foundation), hyenas and other species. Rewilding is increasingly being accepted in the conservation community as a potential tool in endangered species recovery.
In citing a first use in the press, Ms. Fraser credits Jennifer Footes article in Newsweek in 1990, but chose to omit the actual quote which I include here: “Militants vow not just to end pollution but to take back and "rewild" one third of the United States.” - Jennifer Foote, "Trying to Take Back the Planet," Newsweek, February 5, 1990 – a usage clearly having a social/political context. Wikipedia also suggests a different first use: “The word ReWilding was first coined by Animá teacher and author Jesse Wolf Hardin under the pen name Lone Wolf Circles in 1986, and was meant to refer to personal rewilding (primal awareness, meeting one's needs, acting not out of obedience but personal responsibility) as well as wilderness restoration”. Neither of these uses reflect a usage associated with a process of species recovery.
We do not dispute the position on use of the word by Michael Soule to describe landscape-scale ecological restoration and we support its inclusion in that context. On her website, under the title “What is Rewilding” Ms. Fraser says: “Rewilding aims to save species by restoring habitats, reviving migration corridors, and brokering peace between people and predators.” However, the reality of the contemporary use of ‘rewilding’ has seen a change to reflect real-world conservation efforts to save specific endangered species (usually carnivores) that DOES NOT necessarily include corridors, or large-scale ecological restoration characteristics described by Soule, nor the social, anarchistic meaning.
Does this make the ‘species’ usage of the word less significant, credible or relevant to Wikipedia? Like the statistician who drowned in the lake that averaged 4” deep, Ms. Fraser needs to take a broader, more encompassing view of meanings than those used in her subjective world.
In her presumptively entitled “Reason for creating this page” comment on the Rewilding (species) discussion page, Ms. Fraser says: “…as far as rewilding goes, this one group cannot define the term for the rest of the world, merely as a means of advertising their own interests.” We agree, nor should an individual who is actively promoting her book “Rewilding the World” or her website by the same name.
We encourage the administrators of Wikipedia to set aside this subjective squabbling and retain three distinct usages of the word ‘rewilding’ and discourage attempts at ownership for any individual’s vested interests.
China's Tiger (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To: Struthious_Bandersnatch Please note that this version of the article is just a start, it is still far from the final product. Other signifcant projects such as a recent orphaned lions rewilding project in South Africa, and Billy Arjan Singh's Tigress rewilding project will also be included. Sections such as "controversies" and "expert support" will also be added as the article continue to be improved on and edited upon. China's Tiger (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 3:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An examination of the page leads me to believe that the article is a thinly-disguised advertisement for Save China's Tigers. The term "rewilding" as used in this particular article is fairly synonymous with "reintroduction" or "rehabilitating" when it comes to preparing and placing non-wild carnivores back into the wild. The information found within the article when it comes to "rewilding" is found in various other articles on the synonymous subject. There is no need to duplicate it here, and in fact can be confusing with different bits of relevant information spread across different articles instead of concentrated into a single page. Efforts by Save China's Tiger, while extremely worthwhile, can be relocated (or perhaps "rewilded") back to Save China's Tigers own wiki page. Lighthope (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 10:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this is not a public school but rather a private college, a rather tiny one given its shopfront. 2 gnews hits [14] and only in the local newspaper and no wider coverage outside Geelong means it's not notable. LibStar (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Halal. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article largely duplicates information found in Halal and Dhabihah, which are also the only two references given aside from a blog. Topic is also covered at Islamic dietary laws. Seems to be unnecessary duplication (triplication?). Katherine (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The group has confirmed that Fire and Ice was only a working title and that the track listing is no longer fixed Ts4079 (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by Lear's Fool as G3. Non-admin closure to this AfD. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an internet-based hoax that has no basis in historically possible fact or is supported by any verifiable source. Speedy as a hoax removed, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Operation Compass. If a proper reference can be found the information can be merged from the history. The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Lieutenant-Colonel in the Italian Air Force during WWII. His claim to fame is that he spotted tracks of British vehicles, reported it to command, which didn't do anything about it, and therefore the British caught the Italians by surprise. In the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Privates who spotted the Japanese planes on radar are not notable, but the higher up, Kermit Tyler, who screwed up is notable. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If anyone would like access to the deleted content (for a merge to Howard C. Reiche School or any other article), please let me know. -- Lear's Fool 10:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Claim to fame is an elementary school in Maine named after him and a National Ski Patrol member, eight years after the founding of the ski patrol. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Update I've nominated Howard C. Reiche School for AfD per MelanieN suggestion. Discussion is found here. Bgwhite (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the biographical and general notability guidelines. Extremely limited coverage to be found on Google News, which includes a handful of mentions, usually as the presiding minister at funerals. The limited bio on the website of his school gives no indication of notability. -- Lear's Fool 06:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No context. No references. Possible duplicate of Mahashivaratri. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was up for speedy deletion, but possible association with anti-dumping/subsidizing trade case makes it a not so clear case. Moving to AfD for additional review. Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A cursory review of the article reveals virtually zero information that would be useful in a merge, a redirect is likely not useful because the title is not plausible as a search term, and the consensus below is clearly that the Transformers Animated version of Bumblebee does not require his own article. lifebaka++ 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I decided that this article needs at the minimum needs a deletion because myself and User talk:Mathewignash have debated adnauseum the notability of such articles to a standstill. But there is a lack of sufficient third person sources to justify a spin off Bumblebee article. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not all private educational institutions are notable. this one only gets 2 gnews hits and 3 gscholar [16]. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the deletion of the article should be on-hold first because I found the article that the section About Binary should be rewrite or remove because this article was written like an advert. In addition, I found that this page does not meet Wikipedia requirements, so, I suggest that the article should be Wikify. I had request the rescue in order to improve this article. WPSamson (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a website does not show that the subject meets the applicable notability guideline. PROD was contested by author. None of the three non primary sources in the article appear to establish notability because they are trivial in nature (directory-type listings). VQuakr (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fca5543 (talk • contribs)
::: I recommend closeout ASAP as SPEEDY KEEP -- clear case of WP:SNOW. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sounds yummy but sorry not notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this small restaurant chain is notable, even though It could be argued that it technically meets the GNG. WP:LOCAL is an essay, but I agree with it, that more than this sort of local coverage is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Primary school, which doesn't have inherent notability, that fails to pass WP:GNG or state why its notable. Contested PROD, removed without comment. Ravendrop 03:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as is only the coach of the reserve side of TFC. The lone article is about the naming of the main club's coach and only mentions Neely in passing as he was appointed at the same time. Contest PROD, removed without comment. Ravendrop 03:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable athlete. Nowhere near close to qualifying for an article on Wikipedia. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still completely unreferenced after 4 years, and there's no strong evidence of notability, seems to be essentially something someone invented one day. Also pretty much a dicdef. Rememberway (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since August 2010 the article never had other critics but just Mr. Hairhorn and personally no one has wrote to me saying that they can not understand the definition, in fact, they felicitate me for bringing it here at Wikipedia. My experimental project denominated as " The Arkinetic House" will provide more depth into this definition on Kinetic Architecture because of its complexity. That is why It is mentioned that:.... building transforms its interior or exterior structural components by the use of motion through technological innovation.The use of robotics, mechanics and electronics are being better known as new approaches into architectural possibilities'..... Some arduino mechanics systems that are currently used for robotics plays a lot on the big scope for the current definition. Motion could be manually or by electronic systems, so I feel the current definition should be kept until someone comes with a better one. An astrophysics, friend of mine in Switzerland, Jerome N. felicitate me for the definition on Kinetic Architecture and by the experimental project I am designing since 2003. One instructor at Harvard, Prof. Kostas who teaches Kinetics never said one word against the current definition, instead he is felicitating me for the experimental project too. I highly want you to keep the current definition which brings a lot of thoughts on how architecture changes by technology. With my whole respect, kitaro
Kinetic Architecture : Ancient Greek κινητικός (kinētikos, "one who puts in motion") Architecture: Greek ἀρχιτέκτων – arkhitekton, from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder, carpenter, mason"). Is an architectural design concept where a building is transforming, moving or changing by the use of natural or unnatural sources through technological innovations. The use of robotics, mechanics and electronics are being better known as new approaches into its architectural possibilities. kitaro
Kinetic Architecture Ancient Greek κινητικός (kinētikos, "one who puts in motion") Architecture: Greek ἀρχιτέκτων – arkhitekton, from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder, carpenter, mason"). is the property of a building to respond to changing conditions such as use, aesthetic or environmental factors that would alter architectural form. The use of robotics, mechanics and electronics are being better known as new approaches into its architectural possibilities. kitaro
I found we could improve the article by adding historical facts on when the term was used first as I just had a conversation with professor Clark who created it in 1970 with Professor Zuk. It does not mean that because he created the term in 1970 nobody could created it later on. That is what happened to me when in 1989 I ( Architect,Jose Leonidas Mejia A. " Kitaro" ) created the term in 1989 as "Arquitectura Kinetica" when experimenting on moving objects applied to architecture. In 1989 there was no globalized information, nor even internet and my former region (Colombia. South America) the term was not even known not even in the world, so under the circumstances I will keep sustaining the creation of the term since 1989, please understand those facts when adding historical notes on when was term created and who were the ones who craeted along the different period of times.kitaro —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
User colonel warden and others have agreed to keep it. You are right, we are on a time for redefine the concept by finding more reliable sources, and that is what I am doing. Please be patient and instead of asking for deletion, you should be helping to endure the topic. I will insert historical facts that will make it better. This is an scenario for committing a true effort, Not a deletion scenario just because you say so. kitaro —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The result was keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinary doctor, with no evidence of notability. All of the references are links to pages which satisfy one or more of the following: not an independent source; gives only passing mention of Esrailian; does not mention Esrailian at all; quotes Esrailian about another topic, but does not deal primarily with him as subject matter. (PROD was removed without explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company per WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most notable thing about this pianist mentioned in the article was being part of a major Chopin recital. Okay — but where's the notability? Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. No prejudice against recreating with sources. Will userfy or incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article that suggests that this film director's films were themselves notable, and IMDB confirms only one of the three asserted in the article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another promotional desktop virtualization company article, also created by a single-purpose account (User:BHmltn), almost exclusively sourced to press releases. News archive searches reveal no significant, lasting coverage of the company amidst a spattering of brief reviews of the company's product by trade publications. jæs (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. No evidence provided that Ms. Chang or her company are notable. lifebaka++ 19:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither this person nor the company she founded (listed below) seems notable to me. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep theres coverage of her in major publicationsThisbites (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has a few lines of favorable coverage in a reputable business magazine, and has been quoted occasionally in reputable publications. That is not notability. I thought about how to rewrite it, but there is too much unsourced material, excessive detail, and self-flattery. Perchloric (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No evidence provided that Ms. Bondar is notable. lifebaka++ 19:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bit actress. Blueboy96 04:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE. 5th round draft pick, chose to play for a team in Europe instead of the NBA, so evidence of notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources found besides a laconic review on Allmusic. Prod declined without comment. Fails WP:NALBUMS; compilation albums are not inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Two of his three books are from vanity presses, while the third one is from a micropress. In all cases they fail WP:BK. No WP:RS available to support notability of books or author. Qworty (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
*Weak Delete lots of positives in the previous AfD suggesting he is notable in the podcasting world rather than as an author. But here we are five years later and there are no citations to demonstrate notabillity in either. Previous AfD suggests he might meet WP:AUTHOR for podcasting work, or maybe WP:WEB, but without cites after all this time I'm erring on the side of delete.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And more can be gleaned from what Qworty deleted, for example:
The result was Redirected to 1969 World Series, which was done some time ago actually. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is not relevant enough to have its own article. It should be summarized and become a part of the 1969 World Series article. Fjord6789 (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)— Fjord6789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (The nominator has been indef blocked as a Vandalism-only account[28]) [reply]
The result was delete. If the candidate is successful in the upcoming election, please let me know and I will restore the page. -- Lear's Fool 03:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable local councillor. Article created for promotional purposes as subject is a candidate in forthcoming Irish general election. Fails WP:Politician. Note that his candidacy does not make him notable. Snappy (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sweet Fanny Adams (album). Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails notability criteria for songs. It's an album track that was never released as single. A Google search on "Set Me Free Sweet" yields no third party coverage, despite the article's doubtful claim that "it is considered one of Sweet's most well known and popular songs". The article has been tagged with ((Unreferenced)) and ((Notability)) for more than 2 years, to no avail. I tempted to PROD it but discovered that it has previously been nominated for AfD in April 2009, with the same arguments as indicated here. The result was "speedily keep", for a reason that to me looks like a procedural flaw. – IbLeo(talk) 15:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While the count is slightly split leaning towards deleting, those that wish the article to be kept don't really give a compelling rationale. Comparing Brooklyn and London to Downham Market does not add up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normal scheduled bus routes are not normally considered notable as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Transportation. It appears to be original research and is unlikely to have reliable secondary sources. It is not in line with the policy that WP is not a travel guide. Charles (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page is like List of bus routes in Ely, It has very few bus routes but well operated. Anyway the bus routes do operate I looked at other websites to see if traveline is correct. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The arguments put forward by those favouring deletion (that the article lacks sufficent coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability) have not been effectively refuted by those in favor of keeping it. If such sources can be found, please let me know, and I will consider restoring the article. -- Lear's Fool 02:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure programming language. I can't find any sources other than the project's website itself. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being an "obscure programming language" is a "keep" reason in a paperless encyclopedia. There is a preliminary presumption of notability here when Google generates 50,000 hits. In glancing at those hits, I saw many web pages with "afnix" in the URL, each of these web pages documents that "afnix" has been noticed. Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 02:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure programming language. Can't find any notable sources (just because it was made by some guy at Sun doesn't mean it is notable). Christopher Monsanto (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of subsstance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Transformers books. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability, has no citations, is just a summary of the book, which seems just to be a compendium of info Yaksar (let's chat) 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable author.Fails notability.No major awards.No significant writings or books.Poorly referenced with references that just speak nothing of the subject's notability.It seems like a resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poet009 (talk • contribs)
The result was keep. Orlady (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability requirements for a professor, sources simply seem to be a few times where he made a statement on salamanders for a news article. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability per WP:POLITICIAN Yaksar (let's chat) 20:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently fails WP:GNG. Individual apparently successful but no evidence of notability. One source with no footnotes. Doddy Wuid (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyvio of www.dresserjohnson.com/about_us.html JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created by Subject. Recommended deletion per WP:COI WP:NPOV WP:SOAPBOX Phearson (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 10:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable composer, reads more like an ad for his equipment. His imdb entry shows that he has only composed stock music for films. Corvus cornixtalk 00:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the deletion76.222.235.81 (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. — Rod talk 09:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:AUTHOR. His books have won no awards, he is not at the forefront of nor has he created a significant literary movement, he has not been widely cited, etc. Non notable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This social activist surely exists, there are some primary references, and a couple of hints in non-reilable sources (the New World blog [36]), and a correction to an article shoved in the middle of this page [37], but I don't see in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources, which is what WP:BASIC requires. Additional sourcing welcome, of course! j⚛e deckertalk to me 21:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor with a few minor roles, no reliable sources Corvus cornixtalk 23:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]