< 13 January | 15 January > |
---|
The result was merge to London Borough of Newham. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable primary school. Edison (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not mention any reliable sources hence notability cannot be established. Also note that competitive product's page (InstallAware) has been deleted so for consistency this one should also be removed. Grobelny (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from article talk page:
If this article is deleted, then articles on InstallShield, Wise Installer, Innosetup, InstallAnywhere etc. must also be deleted for consistency. All the articles are similar in presentation and content. Daan.Marais (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While this article does seem to need more information, Daan.Marais is quite correct. One cannot delete this product without also deleting its competitors. Shparker (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
End of copy
The result was keep. per overwhelming consensus and WP:SNOW - there is agreement that this should be kept. With regards to the proposed move mid-discussion, the argument does not seem to be gaining traction, so I suggest a requested moves procedure to debate that facet, and make no claim either way to the current consensus on such a move. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:09, 19 January 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 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using:((subst:spa|username)) |
Recentism. WP:BLP#1E. Damiens.rf 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."
Hello, I've just signed on only for the sake of commenting on this, so please forgive me if I don't format this correctly (and kindly advise me). I was surprised to see that this entry is being considered for deletion. Bouazizi's name came up twice in this BBC article [1] so my first move was to look him up in Wikipedia. This man did not just commit suicide in private, this was a public act of protest against police harassment and a government, on a par with the Buddhist monk who self-immolated in Vietnam [2]. This triggered nation-wide protests which four weeks later led to the fall of a government that had held power for 23 years. This is no small thing so I believe this gentleman deserves a separate entry. Sunny112358 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny11235813 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unrecoverable collection of original research used for self-promotion. Damiens.rf 21:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you see the footnotes at the bottom of the page? How is this "unrecoverable collection of original research used for self-promotion"User:AnthonyArger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Arger (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to answer the question and demonstrate how exactly the article is an "unrecoverable collection of original research used for self-promotion"? Or are you going to continue to make ad hominem attacks and waste my time? Very important lifechanging information is being conveyed to the world here - who are you, and why do you have such an interest in stopping it from being conveyed? User:AnthonyArger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.155.43 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 17:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced bio for non-notable person. Damiens.rf 21:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be one of an army of vanity entries, which this Ukranian professor has created about himself in many language editions of wikipedia and wikiquote, Many of these articles feature "Огірко Ігор Васильович" as main author, see here for his contributions to all wikis: http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=%D0%9E%D0%B3%D1%96%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE+%D0%86%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80+%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&lang=
Independent attestations of his notability are missing. Johannes Rohr (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found to support text. Nothing found to support the award given. Nothing in The Hindu or Times of India. no mention of him at the Konkan Railway website Plad2 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources indicating notability for this filmmaker, at this time. His film's acceptance into the little known Syracuse International Film Festival does not confer notability. (In fact, a quick look at the festival's own article reveals it to be highly problematic, in its own right). Perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Less a documentary than a sponsored film, it seems to me, the nominated article has social networking site and video sharing hits, but my Google searches for combinations of the film title and subject reveal no WP:RS. One Times of India hit appears in the Google results because of a YouTube link, not secondary coverage. Despite being proclaimed as a "globally renowned artist," there is no article on Jehangir Sabavala to redirect to at this time, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close. Article had already been deleted with db-web when this AfD was raised. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online job hunting site. Only assertion of notability is that the site has won several Weddle awards. Google news lists a few mentions; none appear to be substantial. Article created by User:Adguide, who appears to represent the site's owner. Zachlipton (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs); rationale was "G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible: G3: Blatant hoax." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article on what are apparently characters of a computer game )as http://rtw.heavengames.com/rtw/info/units/rome) seems to suggest. There is another source http://thearcani.com/content/squads.html which seems to be some kind of fantasy role-playing club. Unfortunately no reliable sources seem to prove that these "arcani" every actually existed in ancient Rome Travelbird (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Skier Dude, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Low-budget documentary uploaded to video sharing sites that meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:FILMNOT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise characters#Team Bullet Train (Team Shinkansen). –MuZemike 23:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character, no reliable sources, and none of the non-reliable sources are even about the character. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Transformers: The Headmasters characters#Decepticons. –MuZemike 22:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character, no reliable sources, and none of the non-reliable sources are even about the character. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 17:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion for non-notable delusional Internet celebrity wannabe. Damiens.rf 19:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –MuZemike 22:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. None of the sources establish that the concept of "exploding animals" has any notability in its own right; instead, this is a mish-mash of a variety of news reports which have been unified under one topic only because Wikipedians said so. The history shows that a lot of other "Exploding..." articles were redirected here; I don't see how putting a bunch of garbage all in one place makes it any more notable than before. Most individual incidents violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SBST. *** Crotalus *** 19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy Pointy nomination, user has been reported for being disruptive. Speedy close.. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 23:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable county road. Recommend Deletion. Gamweb (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Bad faith nomination, user is trying to make a point. Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 23:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable county road. Recommend Deletion. Gamweb (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Bad faith nomination, user is trying to make a point. Speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 23:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable county road. Recommend Deletion. Gamweb (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Taking into account the single-purpose and sock puppetry activity, there is a consensus for deletion here. –MuZemike 22:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mere list of external links - it has no sources independent of the article subject(s) and so does not meet the general notability criteria. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 22:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
totally non-encyclopedic essay WuhWuzDat 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to History of the hamburger in the United States#Competition. The rough consensus clearly favors some sort of deletion, in which a redirect should suffice given the discussion at hand. –MuZemike 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef, stating the obvious. I found no sources except for articles that just used the words "burger wars". One source is NNDB which is not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jerem43, what you've fallen foul of is the unfortunate and widespread tendency to use slang names as article titles. "Burger Wars" is not the formal name of the subject, and is more slang used in newspaper and magazine headlines. It is a name, but it's not how serious treatments of the subject properly address the subject. This stuff is part of the economic history of fast food restaurants in the U.S., and there are sources discussing how they have competed with one another over the years. In such cases, it's best to point the slang name to a more formally titled article and work under the formal title.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable publisher, sourced to a self-reference. My Google search hasn't come up with any reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 20:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Intended addendum to Vadim Rogovin and Nadezhda Joffe pages. Latter page mentions this organization but leads to dead link, former page should probably mention this organization, as it is the sole publisher in the author's native language. Recommend merge with another page. Perhaps a single page listing all Trotskyist Publications, but that would seem least favorable. YB1940. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearbuilt1940 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, not publications, Publishers. Most recommend by far some mention on Rogovin's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yearbuilt1940 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are only in print form as far as I can tell. Once again, it may be best to clip back this article to a sentence or two and place it on the Vadim Rogovin page. For instance, "The sole publisher in Russian of Vadim Rogovin's works is Iskra Research;" with the remaining composition of the edit being fairly irrelevant. I can understand why a whole article may be excessive as it is a very small publisher. Yearbuilt1940 (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to deleting this page and sorting out other concerns later, by the way... Yearbuilt1940 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G3 by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite clearly a hoax, literally the only source that comes up on google is a fanfiction. BOVINEBOY2008 18:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unsourced article that fails to really show why the subject is notable. The article has a number of issues and has been tagged as needing sources for 3 years Astudent0 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of works by Salvador Dalí. No indication that this has any independent notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article last spring as a stub. However, I was a newer editor, and I didn't understand the notability guideline's as well as I do now. I am beginning to have doubts about whether this individual drawing is notable enough for its own article. There are very few, if any sources which could be used to expand it, so it would be highly unlikely for it to ever be anything more than a one-sentence stub. I would like other editors' input on this. Thanks. —focus 04:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never played in major leagues, questionable notability; no sources outside of B-R. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only significant third party sourcing is an editorial about the subject and his previous criminal record WP:BLP1E Active Banana (bananaphone 23:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. After taking into account the single-purpose activity, the consensus clearly favors deletion here. –MuZemike 22:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. The original article included a paragraph about the creator of this concept, one Iva Isaković, whose name is similar to the username of this article's creator (Ivaland (talk · contribs)). The concept was apparently created as part of the author's Master's Thesis. No other uses of this terminology can be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article contains only informations about Survival Capital which are known and notable yet and original aspect of notion should be discussed in another form ,hope soon will find a place here,Everything on Wikipedia was original once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.73 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A search for references found only Wikipedia mirrors. The requirements of WP:V are "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". All indications are that article is the fabrication of a banned user. Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to 720p. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a standard resoultion. It should be deleted. Hinata talk 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –MuZemike 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable: (1) He has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; (2) He does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; and (3) he has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that many people enter band-one EMI schools every year. But how many of these people are written about by the media? Very few, I would predict. Cunard (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Notability The subject appeared in only one film and notability for entertainers requires multiple appearances. No indication of any significant fan base or "cult" following and no indication that the subject made any significant or unique contribution to her field. Declined PROD. Safiel (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as the rough consensus seems to favor retention. Any further discussions regarding merging can be handled outside of AFD. –MuZemike 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article has been an unsuccessful candidate for election to Parliament, and was a local councillor; it is generally accepted that neither is a claim of notability in itself. It is possible to argue that he is notable because of the rare legal case he fought to overturn the 2010 election result, but I would contend that it is the case itself that is notable rather than the litigant. All relevant information about the case is contained in the article about the resulting by-election; so I suggest deleting the biography and then replacing with a redirect to this article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 22:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NAC - Speedily deleted as G11 by User:RHaworth. meshach (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be no more than an advert for an upcoming (but subsequently past) trade show. Emeraude (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficiently notable; google returns six results. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted (G4) by JohnCD. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No solid sources. A previous version of the same name was deleted before. Novice7 | Talk 13:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –MuZemike 22:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficiently notable. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep ; nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only 613 results in Google. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ábrahám, a professional handballer, plays for Veszprém Barabás KC in the Hungarian Championship, which is among the strongest in Europe, listed second on the seedings of the EHF Champions League, the top continental tournament in handball. (Seedings for the current season). She is also a Hungarian full international, having played on the 2010 European Women's Handball Championship, therefore fits the criteria of notability which says "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics."
Generally, handball is sourced poorly throughout the net, which can be a reason for the low number of results in Google. However, searching with her native name gives over 60,000 results, which indicates her notability. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Despite a long and spirited defense of this article's creator, the consensus here is to delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Strange article which aims to provide a complicated theoretical rationale for an utterly trivial idea, namely that you can use the word "clone" to describe a copy of a game. Probably created with the aim of promoting Xisk, one of the game sites referred to in the external links section. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR and possibly WP:SPAM andy (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gentleman, the entire purpose of the Risk (clone) article is to define and document term Risk (clone) which has been in use by Risk players for many years now. The term is very relevant today and deserves it's own article.
Some of the information in the article previously lived in the Risk (game) article but was removed for various reasons (some stupid, some legitimate). Hopefully much of that very useful lost information will find it's way back into the Risk (clone) article where it belongs.
As the Risk (clone) article states, the purpose of a Risk (clone) is NOT to be the same as Risk and in fact in all cases, the exact opposite is sought.
I refer you to the IBM_PC article, specifically the history of the term PC clone where every ma an pop were cloning the original artifact. There is a reason they were called clones - they were NOT identical - if they were they'd've been called 'PC COPIES'.
In the land of copyright you are allowed to 'clone' the source idea. But you may not 'copy' already published copyrighted expressions of said idea. Risk clones are expressions of the generic platonic non-copyrightable IDEA of Risk. They are NOT copies of 1959 expressed published materials.
Just as there ended up being more PC clones than actual IBM pc's, there are more Risk clones than actual Hasbro licensed variants. And there are more players playing Risk clones (on a daily basis) than there are playing the actual game of Risk.
Legally, Risk is no different than Chess and Checkers. Anybody can legally make a Risk clone as long as they do not re-use any of the Hasbro published materials.
I'd suggest also adding Risk (variants) to the disambiguation list and redirect to the Risk (clone) article.
The commercialization argument does not hold water, the Risk (game) article is a shrine to the Hasbro commercialized versions Risk. There are some of you that are failing to understand that Hasbro does not have the soul exclusive monolpoly to commericialize expressions of Risk. Yes they (Parker Brothers) were the first to express the idea of Risk. But doing so does not prevent others from also expressing Risk. If you delete this article for commercial/copyright reasons, then you are being hypocritical and you are persuing a policy that does not agree with United States Copyright laws.
The term Risk (clone) is very legitimate and deserves it's own article. --Riitoken (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IDEAS are cloned. MATERIALS are copied. --Riitoken (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Risk (clone) article contributes to the clarification of what is and is not a violation of copyright using real world examples. The article has real world value for any reader seeking to understand the difference between an IDEA and an EXPRESSION of an idea. --Riitoken (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia article Lux_(video_game) is a Risk (clone) which is fine. But we need an article that clearly defines what a Risk (clone) is, specifically that they are legal and do not need the consent of Hasbro. --Riitoken (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entire purpose of the Risk (clone) article is to document the already existing phrase being used by the internet community. The term is not new and has existed for some time. There is no way to know when it was first used but I know that I personally heard the term back at the beginning of the IBM pc era in the 80's. The article has merit because it documents the populist term already in use. Here are 6 hits from a google search for the term "risk clone": http://www.baumanfamily.com/john/risk.html http://boardgames.about.com/od/riskonline/Risk_Online_and_Computer_Versions.htm http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=48539 http://demonews.com/thread104-1.html http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/flash+risk+clone+freeware/ http://touchreviews.net/pocket-world-war-risk-clone/ The article is NOT doing original research on the term. It is merely documenting what has already transpired in the modern lingo of the internet. Sometimes wikipedia IS the authoritative place to learn what a popular term means - certainly in this instance. Now if any of you disagree with how the article describes the already existing term then please EDIT THE ARTICLE with your changes, but do not delete the article. --Riitoken (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2011-Jan-14 google is showing 25,700 page hits for the exact phrase "risk clone" --Riitoken (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google this phrase what is a risk clone? and see that the first hit is a reference to Risk (game) (the original) and the second hit is a reference to Risk (clone) and that is as it should be. The two article combined serve the reader fully. --Riitoken (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I ask any of you to refer me to the Wikipedia rules that, allow Hasbro to enshrine every commercially licensed instance of a Risk based work, but disallow a similar shrine to legitimate Risk (clones). Furthermore, given that these two excerpts remain in the Risk (game) article, where EXACTLY is the reader supposed to learn more about the history of Risk clones with the expected Wikipedia Neutral Point of View?
I again remind all of you that the list of unofficial clones used to live on the Risk (game) page but were evicted in the giant edit war last year.
And to Ollie, yes there SHOULD be a page for Asteroids (clone) and Space Invaders (clone) assuming there is a wikipedia writer/editor willing to start those articles and there is something legitimate to say within those articles and assuming the article can be written from the neutral pov. --Riitoken (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article can meet these goals while upholding the high standards of Wikipedia. The article will only become better as real clone makers/players volunteer to edit the content - because they are the real 'Policeman' who can decide the WP:NPOV for Risk clones. Forgive me for saying so but the only editors qualified to contribute to the WP:NPOV are actual Risk clone players and Risk clone makers. We need to allow the article to live so we can tap that collective editorship; doing so will allow this article to make an excellent contribution to Wikipedia. --Riitoken (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*POLL I'd like to request that all present volunteer a YES or NO answer line, with signature inside the ////// markers.
--Riitoken (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, G7, single substantive author requests deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –MuZemike 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
article does not indicate notability of specific subject "version 3" (though im sure thats an artifact transferred from a userpage). subject is covered by Electronic learning, which is linked at the beginning. seems a rehash with no references. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC) (PS this was created using Twinkle. if this was in any way done incorrectly, or if Twinkle is not considered appropriate for this function despite it being in the menu, i apologize, as this is my first use of the function.)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged on 12 March 2010 by User:Abductive [22] for its questionable notability, and even with some copy edits this article clearly fails to establish either Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability, as well as pushing the limits of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Having survived the Holocaust and doing well in life later does equal true fame and notability. This obituary would be nice in a small local paper it is not encyclopedic. IZAK (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons given. Η936631 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. From my read of the deletion discussion, the valid arguments boil down to whether or not the article is encyclopedic as well as whether or not the sum of all entries conferred notability for the topic as a whole. I could not find a consensus for deletion on any of those aspects. –MuZemike 22:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, where do I begin. The article began from an alert on the Notability noticeboard, where instead of deleting the individually non-notable people, apparently someone decided to just plop them all together in one article without addressing the notability concerns in the first place. Unfortunately, it was a lazy way out that didn't solve the underlying problem in the first place (but that's its own issue). For instance,the line "A photograph from November of 1940 was alleged to show a time traveller.It was claimed that his clothing and sun glasses were modern and not the style worn in 1940." constitutes the entirety of a full L2 section and is pretty representative of how bad the rest of the article is. There are also significant issues with BLP on this article -- despite being decently sourced, the section on the time travelling spammer brings up the subject's mental health for no significant reason and begs the question why it's even there in the first place? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Slight coverage does not warrant to keep an article that is wholly unencyclopedic. Η936631 (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least till they get a bit further. For example this is RS and worth the read. this is another RS, but some of them aren't RS. Still, I think there's something in FRINGE which allows bad sourcing for these things. BE——Critical__Talk 20:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potential rewrite, Collapsed to focus AfD on Original article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
---|
comment - Taking on board some of the comments above, I have begun an at least partial rewrite of the article in the article Sandbox Talk:Time_travel_urban_legends/Sandbox Whilst comments below would be appreciated on whether a move to this format would be beneficial (and hopefully change some of the above delete votes) I'd respectfully request that I be allowed to complete the rewrite in the subpage and that any issues that are not grounds for deletion (things like reliability of Sourcing, Manual of Style, etc) be left until (consensus not withstanding) this version is moved into article space. That said I still stand by my original point that some of these items are best placed in a list article not for a lack of notability but for a lack of potential for expansion, once this rewrite is complete it may be that a discussion has to take place on whether the article in it's current state should be retained in List of Time Travel Urban Legends or equivalent.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure). Still needs work and improvements. JJ98 (Talk) 06:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, this article and the list of characters has no real world coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 06:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The consensus of this discussion is that there have been sources produced that establish notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website as require per WP:N and WP:WEB. The website doesnot meet the criteria for both policies. Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 06:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominating reasons. Η936631 (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm inclined to agree with the nominator on this one, fails for notability, fails for WEB inclusion guidelines, and with it being so restrictive (registered med. practitioners only) it doesn't look like it will get any better soon. Alexa rank for this site is 642,612. It gets little traffic, little usage, not worth an entry here. Burn it with fire. BarkingFish 12:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus (to say the least). Most of the reasons for retention leave more to be determined, but weak evidence of assertion of notability has come forth. –MuZemike 22:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominating reason. Η936631 (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable brand product. G11? CTJF83 chat 05:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs); reason was "A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical article of what I assume is a living person. Has all kinds of claims, none of them sourced. Google doesn't really seem to show anything pertinent either, just lots of twitter, facebook and similar pages. Has a strong smell of hoax. Travelbird (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected. No other suggestions made after 10 days, and I don't see anyone else objecting this, so I'm being WP:BOLD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources are blogs, Amazon, interviews and otherwise poor. Article is very spammy. Gnews search shows only JustJaredJr.com, which is of dubious notability. Also claims that they're signed to Interscope, but Interscope's site doesn't list them and their own personal website is offline. Close, but doesn't quite meet WP:MUSIC despite having other members of a less marginally notable band. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, there is plenty of evidence listed there to prove that it is a real band and it meets WP:MUSIC. They are listed on Interscope's website (http://www.interscope.com/artist/default.aspx?aid=1178 [4]), which is also provided as an article reference. One of their recorded songs was included on the "Despicable Me" movie soundtrack - which was the #1 movie at the box office on July 11th, 2010. It's Amazon product listing is listed as an article reference to prove that they are on the soundtrack. Their personal website points to their MySpace Page, which lists several of their recorded songs. Many artists use their MySpace Band Page as their main website. Any Google search proves that this is a real band. Jasmith1990 (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor league hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. This 2nd year AHL player is currently his team's eighth defenceman. He is nursing nagging injuries and has dressed for only 18 games to the halfway point of this season. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Dolovis (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you can find anywhere that would take this all you have to do is ask Courcelles 17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article treats very many (all?) "species" which were hypothesized to might evolve in the documentary The Future is Wild. The species + the periods are treated in a way as if this fiction is a truth. I see (apart from the style issue of presenting fiction as truth) no encyclopedic value in this extensive treatment and regard it as a fan site. The species are not treated extensively in popular culture or science warranting inclusion of an article on that ground. I realize wikipedia has (de facto) much lower standards for notability of lists than of articles, but in view of the treatment of the subject, the introduction of the eras and the length of this list, I have treated this list as an article here. L.tak (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons given. Η936631 (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Transition (Chipmunk album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name isn't even confirmed, the first single hasn't even been released, there's no track listing and there's no confirmed release date. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 04:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ARTICLE FOR WHICH " there's no track listing and there's no confirmed release date". ALSO FLYING HIGH WAS RELEASED LAST YEAR.19:37, 7 January 2011 Keep
The name of the album "Transition" has been confirmed on several interviews and articles. The album is officaly active since it is first single "Flying High" has been released and charted at 72 in 2010. 11:53, 8 January 2011. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.70.137 (talk)
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unreferenced. This article has no sources or real world coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 04:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. The only sources cited for information on the person are a court document and an article in a college newspaper. I'm glad that he was caught and punished for his crimes (assuming that is true) but that is the job of the police and courts, not WP. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons given. Η936631 (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD G12. A Google search of the article's first sentence showed that they had been lifted from the book Semper fi-- Vietnam: from Da Nang to the DMZ : Marine Corps campaigns, 1965-1975. I've also blocked the editor who started this article as they've repeatedly breached copyright. . Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed account of a battle. Either this was taken from a book or another source in which case it is a copyright violation or it was written up from personal memory by the author in which case it is OR Travelbird (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this article is already insulting to azerbaijanis. The people from the Historical Western Azerbaijan never named themselves Yeraz and they consider this word as insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmelikov (talk • contribs) 2011/01/05 13:15:23
The result was redirect to Hilary Duff concert tours. Per IP, no reason not to redirect (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More comprehensive list already exists at Hilary Duff concert tours. Fixer23 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only Google results I can find are Wikipedia mirrors are other people with the same name. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the article, while interesting, seems to me to fail WP:Notability Prod was declined by IP. There are potential WP:COI Issues here as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was '. redirected by nom (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not give reader any information at all. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected by nom. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gives reader no information at all. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ras Barker. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails notability criteria for films Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ras Barker. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability criteria for films Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I found that wasn't non-trivial I found was at the blacklisted suite101.com. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO. I searched gnews for her name in English and Azerbaijani and got nothing. 1 gnews hit in Russian. gbooks only gives her 2 hits and one of them used Wikipedia as a ref. article claims her career started in 1930 yet she was born then? LibStar (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]