The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. WP:NOTCATALOG doesn't apply, as there is not pricing information, list do not exist for navigational purposes (cats and navboxes do). There are major sourcing and quality issues with this article, but there is not sufficient reason to delete, in the view that community consensus has supported the existence of this type of article in the past Cerejota (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory: Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed ThemFromSpace 20:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
similar "list of products" exist for IBM, HP, and canon. As I understand that wikipedia is not list of everything that exist. I believe that lists of tech products (if included data for comparison) is useful.--Meirpolaris (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The BLP is sourced, just not with footnotes. There is no consensus that the sourcing is insufficient per WP:BIO to justify an article. Sandstein 05:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. BLP that is still unsourced after nearly 6 years. Insufficient coverage found to justify an article. Michig (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:27, 8 August 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)) . |
Promotional article for a writer of questionable notability. All references are to primary sources, basically identifying that yes, he's published a few articles. All other claims of notability are completely unreferenced. Google search for "Matthew D. Sacks" Bitsource (which he is allegedly primarily known for) shows only 8 results. A search on "Matthew D. Sacks" GlassCode (the company he is CEO of) also shows only 8 results. A search on just the name mainly shows primary sources, or social media sites - little significant coverage. Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR specifically, and WP:BIO in general. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to bring forth another example for comparison. Here is another software community leader who has a similar Wikipedia page. The arguments being made against this article could easily be used against this example as well. This is why I feel that the article is being treated unfairly and differently as it clearly shows a similar merit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jono_Bacon. Under this example, one might argue that there is no reason that such an article as that on Mr. Bacon should be approved and this should not. The citations and verifications are very similar to that on the article in question here. --Louella romano (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There does not yet seem to be sufficient material for an article. The possibility of an article on Vibration anaalgesia should be pursued, if there are in fact sufficient 3rd party sourcing. Whether this particulardevice is yet appropriate for mention in such an article would need discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page the author naïvely states "my intention has been to inform Wikipedia users of the gadget that I have developed". That reads to me like an admission that the article is spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if I may be given a concrete hint what can be deleted - I have deleted the link to the site where WIKIPEDIA users could find out how to get the gadget which is not too much in their interest but respecting the basic rules that an article must not advertise anything.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE and feedback. --Capekm (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Capekm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Now please let me know what can be be changed in addition to this and shall be happy to do so. And well I have to admit that I am a naive person as Mr Haworth rightly puts it and a bit gullible at that so Mr Haworth is absolutely right.
--Capekm (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mealanie,
Thank you for reading my article. I understand that this time you cannot rescue an article from deletion proposed by Mr Haworth
Maybe you could not find the references backing up what I am writing - I have read these articles when my librarian (I am a disabled person and so they were very helpful to me then and made a thorough reseach for me those years ago when the web was not yet in practical use here in Europe) found them for me but this method is now an out of date and a time consuming approach. So I have made some basic reseach of the references for you as availabe on the web nowadays:
Lundeberg's works on vibration or vibratory analgesia are extensive and they spread across a time period of at least 20 years beginning in the 80th. I have quoted only one of of them, as this one is the most telling one on the subject
Lundeberg T. Vibratory stimulation for the alleviation of pain.
Please Melanie, I were wondering if you could have a quick look at the diagram fig 6 vibration application points E, F and G application points in particular. Note please that my gadget uses a harmonic mix up of frequences not 100 Hz exactly, which adds to the higher efficiecy of the gadget. The flat brushless vibration units I have developed - which is what you rightly see as a new feature - are 10 to 12 cm apart from each other on both sides of the backbone, as Ludeberg calls it paravertebral. This is on the page 8 of this article published 1984 by Elsevier, an established Medical Publisher and I have duly quoted this in references.
Vibratory analgesia is a proven treatment method and my article tries - perhaps clumsily - to give information on a method that is an important alternative to eg TENS - which is propertly covered by Wikipedia, unlike vibration analgesia.
I can go on with other sources supporting what is written in my article on vibration analgesia in back pain. This topic is covered by renomated and reputable researchers - not mine, e g: Vibration reduces thermal pain in adjacent dermatomes. where the vibration effects are demonstrated - for the difference from the back and spine, paravertebral areas in the above mentined Lundeberg's work, on the volar forearm. This is in agreement with my own observations - having little if no importance and notablility but I dare to mention them - in the area of low back arch, but the dermatomes affected by analgesia may be as far from each other as cervical ones and lumbar ones - which is certainly a new observation, so Mr Haworth would be right calling my article SPAM in this regard too, hope I do not sound too disruptive here.
Or for instance another one:
Lundeberg T. A comparative study of the pain alleviating effect of vibratory stimulation, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, electroacupuncture and placebo. Am J Chin Med. 1984 Summer;12(1-4):72-9
In this article Lundeberg clearly prove vibratory/vibration analgesia to be as effective in myalgic pain as (again at 100 Hz, the frequency used by my gadget - sorry for talking about it - I have it round my waist now sitting at my bedside PC) TENS.
The notability criteria are one of the strongest WIKIPEDIA pillars - and I shall respect them.
You are right that I wanted to spread the word about something NOT YET COVERED in Wikipedia, proved valuable by clinical tests.
[1]
[2]
So what next after you have deleted the article?
Obviously I am not capable to put a good article together without a bit of help or advise of an Experienced Senior WIKIPEDIAN & Wikignome.
What about your kind giving me a hand and starting this botched&bungled article from scratch, rewriting it? I mean something like the one on TENS as it is published in Wikipedia already?
Is it too insolent of me?
Maybe I am a bit wordy butt being a disabled person having his secondd hand bedside PC as his sole life line to the society and community life outside his bedroom is a pretty effective and painful exclusion for anybody I think and so having a rare and precious opportuninty to discuss, dispute - even if it hurts a bit if you know that your work is going to be disposed of and thrown away - is dear&welcome to me.
To put an end to this rambling of mine:
ONCE AGAIN MELANIE
I would feel HOUNOURED if you can help me to put another article together covering this topic for WIKIPEDIA users meeting your standards in full, including the notability for a medical treatment.
--Capekm (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is new, it's nice, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I share the principles of verifiability, reliability and independence with
Bearian
whose uplifting words I am taking to my heart - it took me 10 years, including lots of experiments on myself. Being a disabled person - thank G. still not bedridden but confined to my bedroom only and the freedom of information offered by the web (the BBC and WIKIPEDIA, I am a modern maths lover, investigating the paradoxes of the zero set on other levels than e g vacuuous truth - prefering naive theory to the axiomatic ZFC) is if far from easy for me to wwrite an article and in English at that which in not my mother tongue so I am struggling heavily at times with language and so - getting a few positive words before having this prematurely born article disposed of me some power to go on - even if I feel losing energy and even frustration at times - but your comments are right and I fully accept them. Sorry for sounding a bit personal here - this may be well considered cause for deleting my post and this talk page altogeter.
ONCE AGAIN THANK YOU ALL, to Dr Brian Logan in Particular.
I have been able only due to your assistance/comments/criticism to spot a lot of serious mistakes I have made and removed them at once:
i. any mention and information on the gadget I have been developing all those years using the method known and described by Lundeberg's in the 80s removed - to make it less promotional.
ii. declaring Confilict of Interest as a person who has been testing the method in practice and in a specific condition - low back pain
iii. improved the layout, busy wikifying the content adding internal links and pictures: and this is a delight as WIKIPEDIA is a treaure trove of wisdom and knowledge - this make even a person which is naive and gullible as I am much richer and happier.
iv. added literary qotations that can be verified online - PubMed.
I would be happy to cooperate and discuss the article with you, making further changes as you may deem appropriate to get it into the WIKIPEDIA shape.
--Capekm (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr James B Watson,
I am happy to find your comments on my botched articled sentenced to deletion.
I am trying as hard as I only can to absorb every word of advice I am given by all of you - and beside the way I do prefere tranparent full versions when discussing ( which is always a rare privilege when your partners are clever people, and all of you - no matter how much you dislike my article) rather than opaque acronyms, not matter when talking to people or trying to understand the sophistication & refinements of WIKIPEDIA editing.
--Capekm (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Third-generation descendant of a former ruling dynasty, otherwise an unremarkable private citizen with no public role and no apparent signs of individual notability. Notability is not inherited. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus seems essentially unanimous. Any remaining problems can be dealt with on the talk p. or by OTRS DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have corresponded with Miss Poplavskaya and it is her wish that this article be removed from Wikipedia. The information given has been cobbled together from various articles and she finds it's contents hurtful and insulting. She has also pointed out that the photograph used was taken without her permission. TristanTzara (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So can we just close this AFD? No delete votes have been posted and we seem to all generally agree that there was no legitimate reason for this AFD in the first place. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that Jackson played major cricket, which when this article was created may well have been correct. A look on CricketArchive shows the player has not played any major cricket (for Jackson it would be first-class cricket), so it seems the status of the matches he played in has been downgraded, meaning he no longer meets WP:CRIN. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This AfD moved from a discussion of an obviously non-notable BLP, to a more debated article about a viral video. Along the way there was a procedural close of keep which the closing admin switched to relist upon being prompted, which was a good move.
The notability guidelines are operative here, specifically the GNG and also WP:Notability (web). In the delete camp, Metal.lunchbox invokes the latter in terms of the often ephemeral nature of web content, while SheepNotGoats invokes the former with close attention to whether or not the coverage (which obviously exists) is truly "significant." A Quest For Knowledge responds to these points with links to sources, but does not really offer a policy argument. In general a case is not made that this viral video meets our notability guidelines, and the objections from delete !voters on that front are not well responded to.
All that said, this video has definitely attracted a lot of attention and is popular (it's funny!). The creator might well go on to some sort of career in entertainment given the popularity of this video. Were that to happen, there would be no prejudice against recreation of the basic content now being deleted in one form or another. I'm also happy to userfy it if someone is so inclined, but for now the discussion seems to me to warrant a deletion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about an individual who fails WP:GNG; she is apparently known for a parody youtube movie. The movie has minor coverage in mid/low quality sources but nothing substantive and doesn't seem to be particularly notable amongst the hundreds of youtube videos/memes mentioned in passing by news outlets each year (i.e. it too fails WP:GNG)
Beyond the video no other sources have any information
Content may deserve a brief mention in a list article about internet parodies, but I can't find one that fits for the moment. Errant (chat!) 21:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At request, I've reverted my closure (which was a procedural keep on the basis of a major change in the article title to EHarmony cat video) and relisted. I have, as I said, no opinion on the article in either version. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability established through the topical notability guidelines for composers/musicians or the general notability guidelines. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator
While I would have imagined otherwise from the Man of the Year (Playgirl) title, I did not find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this male model and personal trainer in order to evidence notability under GNG, nor reliable sources to verify the claim under any theory of inherent notability. Some blog coverage, and I'm sure the books in the bio include photos of him, but I don't see via Google or in the article history any biographical coverage. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe deckertalk to me 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Withdraw, see below.[reply]
The result was Author close. ~~EBE!@#~~ talkContribs 21:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page made by WP:SPLIT but not with consensus. ~~EBE!@#~~ talkContribs 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 05:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject has written books and many journal articles and book chapters, but does not show up in secondary coverage. There also seems to be a conflict of interest in the page creation by User:JTrap, who knew all the biographical details and parentage of the subject without citing any sources. The page was PROD'ed in 2007 and the PROD removed by the page creator. Yoninah (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article prodded because player had never played at a fully-pro level, thus failing WP:NFOOTY, and because there wasn't enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Creator removed prod with rationale on article talk page. Struway2 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:footy. The player never played professionally and very young, no general coverage. Matthew_hk tc 17:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I have been unable to locate significant coverage outside of original sources and the student newspaper "The Daily Gamecock", and as noted in WP:MUSICBIO, "Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial..." I am unable to find any evidence that the group has achieved national recognition, has received non-trivial coverage of a national or international tour, has released albums on a major label, or has won any major music industry awards. A claim made by the article's original author (who has declared a conflict of interest [20]) [21] is, "number one A Cappella group in the state of South Carolina" - but I am unable to locate any sources to verify this. The author's claim appears to be based on number of youtube hits and facebook fans, which is not an acceptable source for such a claim. This appears to be a student organization which is popular on its own campus, but at present does not have significant notability for a Wikipedia article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Has been substantially edited since nomination. Stubbing and/or rewriting to improve the article remains always possible. Sandstein 05:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly a topic here, as can be seen through book and journal searches, but the article is such a mess of original research that it would be better to blow it up - there's pretty much nothing here that belongs in an encyclopedia article on prosocial behavior, and "replace all the content" is not substantially different from "delete and start over." It would also be helpful to decide whether or not a separate article should (eventually) exist or whether it should just be a redirect to Altruism. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that, at very least, the article here is pretty weak. There may be some value in merging to altruism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.222 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A behaviour is not a feeling and, anyway, it contradicts you and de Wall. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Prosocial behavior is caring about the welfare and rights of others, feeling concern and empathy for them, and acting in ways that benefit others.
Very surprised to be reading this. But it appears that a deletionist has suggested it, wasting a lot of people's time that could be devoted to writing better text... lets' just all get on with that job. Tim bates (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the last comment entirely. This is an important topic in psychology, and it should not be too difficult to improve it with citations - such as the book by Daniel Bar-Tal on this subject. So, I would be in favour of keeping this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was previously nominated by banned user Flylanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I closed the discussion as a contribution by a banned user. Per the discussion here, I am re-nominating it without preference. causa sui (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No one, even the nominator, is arguing for deletion. Courcelles 00:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was previously nominated by banned user Flylanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I closed the discussion as a contribution by a banned user. Per the discussion here, I am re-nominating it without preference. causa sui (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No one, even the nominator, is arguing for deletion. Courcelles 00:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was previously nominated by banned user Flylanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I closed the discussion as a contribution by a banned user. Per the discussion here, I am re-nominating it without preference. causa sui (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough- Referenced in Byte magazine and used by NASA in some of their software. snaphat ► 02:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. apparently unverifiable. though there are sometimes problems with sourcing in this geographic area, it's very unlikely there would be for a person of this wealth. If we're all wrong, and someone does find sources, then there can be an article. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a hoax. I cannot find any evidence that this person exists, despite a claimed net worth of $4.1 billion. The article claims the subject is the founder and chairman of a telecommunications company. The creator of the article also wrote an article about the company [26] by copying and pasting the article on Emirates Telecommunications Corporation [27]. The subject of this article is not the chairman of Emirates Telecommunications Corporation, and was not at the time the article was written (the current chairman, Mohammed Omran, has been in that position since 2005 [28]). Given that the creator of this article added a cleanup template dated six months earlier I suspect the content may have originally been copied and pasted from somewhere else. Hut 8.5 15:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wife of someone notable - unworthy of her own article - some contentious uncited also in the article - templated uncited since ten months - If someone can assert she really exists and was married to him then I support a deletion and then a protected redirect to stop this article being recreated, if not then delete and salt. I notice the detail about her is in Hassan II article but it is uncited there as far as I can see - anyway this person is not wiki notable and shouldn't have a BLP here. WP:NOTINHERITED - Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-->
The (possibly imprisoned?) mother of the current king whose brother attempted to kill King Hasan II is a non-notable...? ...and Iron Man's enemy "Whiplash" isn't? You guys are beyond laughable with all your little codes - it's breathtaking. "Wikipedia is Second Life for Corporations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.45.36 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no independent notability notability shown for this album. lacks coverage. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. prod removed saying "notable artists contributed to it, so its notable" which is simply not true. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 05:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced biography. Even if well referenced, being a medal holder doesn't qualify him for a wikipedia entry. Rafy talk 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to address the criteria of WP:ORG. Being one of the 24 hour gyms in Australia is not particularly notable and neither is being the only one in Tasmania to offer Technogym's VisioWeb product. Improvement notices are being removed and as the article has now been created 3 times, raising for a wider discussion. For BEFORE advocates, you may wish to be reassured that I find no matches to {"Key Fitness" Tasmania} when searching in GBooks or GNews archives. Fæ (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:NFOOTY: hasn't yet played a professional match. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. Non-admin closure. Error in searching name for sources. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PROF jsfouche ☽☾Talk 12:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previously kept (no consensus) from an AfD in 2006, but as there is still no significant coverage of him or his work in independent reliable sources, I think standards have increased and consensus can change. The-Pope (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biographical article. Certainly doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:BIO. McDonald is not the subject of the Sydney Morning Herald article referenced, but rather the private network he installed is. Also looks quite possible that User:Gdmcdo who created the article is in fact Dominic McDonald (see File:Dominic_McDonald.jpg).Shudde talk 09:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was deleted at AFD in 2010. This version is sufficiently different to avoid deletion by the letter of G4 but still has the same notability issues. It's possible that he has become more notable since then, but I couldn't find any evidence that this is the case. Michig (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And:
Delete. WP is not a product catalogue. From the Netgear DG834 article: "White case with a white removable antenna..." - so what! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And:
Delete all. WP is not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete on any. Cisco 2500 series specifically is kept. A merge is highly suggested for the others. lifebaka++ 00:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
Delete all. WP is not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
doubtful notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A1 - no context for whatever this is about; quite possibly some are copyvio too. WP:CSD#G1 however does not apply, as there are understandable words. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic article Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:
The result was delete. Nobody on the "keep" side of things has provided any arguments more useful than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know. Geek2003 (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRINGE scientific 'hypothesis' cited solely to a PR release and a pre-publication article by its claimant. No indication that this specific hypothesis (as opposed to unrelated uses of the phrase "Parallel Genome Assembly") has received any notice in the scientific literature. Only third-party hit I could find is to Mun, Johnathan (2003). Faith Journey. City: Xulon Press. ISBN 1591606578. -- which is hardly a WP:RS for scientific claims. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not meet WP:GNG Pass a Method talk 06:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The article has been considerably rewritten during the course of this AFD, and nobody but the nominator wanted this article to be deleted. Merging is an editorial decision that can be discussed on the article's talk page, at Talk:Premier League, or at some other relevant venue. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an award that has very few google hits. It's mentioned but it's unclear how notable it is. More importantly this article has 0 context. It has a badly formed list of winners for the past 7 years. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable, non-governmental "unofficial" scale created and used only by The Weather Channel (TWC). It is rarely, if ever, used outside that program. Darren23Edits|Mail 03:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 00:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable corporation, nothing in google news archive aside from press releases and passing mentions. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:MADEUP Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be made up, original research, unverifiable, and non-notable. --Σ talkcontribs 01:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable small waterpark. Only significant coverage is around a single event (fire). Prod was contested pointing to fire as evidence of notability. RadioFan (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable video game company. Not clear how this might meet WP:CORP. Article created by a SPA promoting this company's and it's products. Prod contested without improvement. RadioFan (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 00:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable video game. Article created by a SPA promoting this company's game. Prod contested without improvement. RadioFan (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND. Very promotional in tone. Only sources are primary (twitter, facebook, etc.) or promotional. No reliable secondary sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe, minimally sourced. No way to source most of this. WP:IINFO, WP:NOTPLOT. Last AFD closed in 2007 as no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. People disagree about whether this is only a DICDEF or whether the underlying custom is notable and merits encyclopedic treatment. Sandstein 05:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary; foreign language or otherwise (WP:DICDEF). Avi (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of additional sources that are reliable and go beyond DICDEF:
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A video game designer. Can't find any reliable references about him. I only can find his name listed as one of the many developers on some games. Bgwhite (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entry for him at MobyGames http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,205890/ provides reliable evidence of his work as MobyGames only allows entries that are verified by evidence such as credit videos, screenshots or manuals. The LinkedIn profile for him http://www.linkedin.com/in/spence2000 also provides further evidence of his work from co-worker reccomendations.
This provides reliable references not only that he exists, but also that his works can be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.161.239 (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"no evidence of editorial oversite."? Moby Games requires physical evidence of all information listed on the site to be approved by qualified approvers. Without evidence, it is not accepted on the site. That's why mobygames is a reliable source of factual information verified by an independant 3rd party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.164.45 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some relevant guidelines: Sources should be "Independent of the subject". "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. It is common for Games professionals to create their own mobygames page and cannot be assumed to be an independent source (hence why it's listed as non suitable source). Similarly, linkedin pages are always created by the subject.
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed: Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in History of violence against LGBT people in the United States). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project. This person is not well known, famous or notorious. There are many games designers more famous than this person without wikipedia pages.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The user who created this page has no list of other created pages, the account was created solely for the creation of this page. This makes it likely the user is the subject of the page and is using wikipedia as a means of self promotion. This is strictly against guidelines. 46.208.211.1 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convicted of murdering his parents in Texas. While there is news coverage in the Dallas-Fort Worth papers, I'm unable to find any news coverage outside of Texas and only a couple of mentions elsewhere in Texas. Just a "routine" murder. WP:NOTNEWS. Bgwhite (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. The subject of the article comes up a lot on the internet, but every link I've checked is either a primary, unreliable source, a link to a forum discussion, or a simple mention of Selin in context of him being the CEO of a gambling company. Also the article was written in a promotional tone with a lot of dubious claims and the author seems to edit only articles related to Bodog gambling company. The article also mentions his success in poker which is far beyond inducing enough notability on its own. Rymatz (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Kiyohiko Azuma. Courcelles 00:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Search for reliable third-party sources could not be found to pass WP:NOTE or WP:BK. Article was originally deleted via a prod, but later restored with no further evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. —Farix (t | c) 23:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Turkish National Movement.. Seems obvious enough to close without a 2nd relisting DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Takabeg (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. How on earth this is still open is far beyond me. There doesn't seem to be any consensus; if retitling is needed, it can be boldy done, if it's still felt deletion is required then a new nom should be made instead of having this languish on a two-month-old AfD page. The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
McMeekin refers to another "Battle of Bitlis" which took place in 1914,[1] Fatih Ünal calls this "battle" "Bitlis Rebellion" or "Molla Selim (Mullah Selim) Rebellion"[2]
Erickson refers to another "Battle of Bitlis" which was engaged by the 1st Expeditionary Force.[3]
Both battle are not same as the "Battle of Bitlis" explained in this article.
Takabeg (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly were battles near Bitlis in July-August 1916, but, apparently, "Battle of Bitlis" is not established term.--DonaldDuck (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]