The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Complete hoax. Found absolutely no sources verifying that this exists. Deprodded without comment by IP. G3 was declined on a similar article (Gadget Boy (2013 TV series)) due to not being "blatant", so I wasn't sure if this was G3-able. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. NAC—S Marshall T/C 14:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
This surprisingly old article appears to have started out as a redirect to an article about magic. At some point it was redirected to an illusionism article about art and then finally was given its basic current content from a contributor who has neither before or since made any further contributions, nor provided any sources. Essentially this is a mix of lacking notability, verifiability, and possibly a case of original research. The term ‘illusionism’ is itself a rhetorical device used in many different contexts (just look at a Google ‘books’ search). I could only find two standard g-search results using ‘Illusionism’ with the article's definition and both appear to be a reflection of the Wikipedia article. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence for notability, but as a philosophical term this is verifiable. ThemFromSpace 03:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant nonsense Bleaney (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Only one source, no GNews, GBooks, or GHits other than social media. Second ref is self-published blog. GregJackP Boomer! 23:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable village per WP:GEOLAND but what I really don't like about the article it that the village is described as having the "chief claim to fame is its spectacularly monotonous climate" and "...being monotonously hot, Andagoya is also monotonously wet...". These disparaging opinions (is it unreferenced) has been here since March 2004! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable sources, with one student newspaper ref & one internet ref, the rest are social media or sites to sell their music. Declined CSD. GregJackP Boomer! 23:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He did make two FA Cup appearances for Milton Keynes Dons, but neither of the two were against a fully pro club so he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and I can't find any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jreferee (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, weak references that do little to establish notability. Since the Farsi wikipedia page was deemed non-notable (AFD page is here) we're left with no compelling reason to keep a page up on English wiki. Hairhorn (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Career minor-league player see here. Fails WP:ATHLETE. kelapstick(bainuu) 13:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 06:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pure advocacy. The subject is probably notable, but the article would need to be rewritten from scratch with a NPOV. It might be better to move some of the sources and material to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SPARC Child Rights Society in Pakistan, which badly needs it. Please note the discussion at ANI with respect to conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete this material. Reasons for deletion cited include a lack of notability and BIO1E. The lack of notability is addressed by Novangelis' response, a merge being preferred over deletion because of WP:ATD, and discussion about a merge can continue on the relevant talk pages if editors wish to pursue it. The 1E argument is addressed by Nixie9, whose point appears to be that having a disease is not really an "event". This is perhaps less than totally satisfactory, so I am uncomfortable with closing as "keep", but editors are clearly not in favour of deletion either. The debate has been relisted twice and attracted a reasonable amount of input. I consider that "no consensus" is the only available close.—S Marshall T/C 15:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Man with a nasty disease who briefly made some headlines before dying of an unspecified cause. WP:1E and of very limited enduring relevance. JFW | T@lk 15:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, with the spurious reason that being the brother of Donald Trump means he is notable (notability is not inherited). Just another businessman. TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Delcam. MBisanz talk 06:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
Nominating on behalf of Stalwart111, who requested these to be listed in a separate discussion: "In all cases, most of the "sources" are actually just company press releases reprinted by tech sites or affiliates. The one or two articles about each product aren't, in my opinion, anywhere near enough coverage to justify WP:N. We've had a few CAM-spam company articles lately. Maybe someone told them WP was a good way to promote their products. More likely, one or two jumped on WP and created promo-spam articles and other followed so as not to be left out. I can accept that the "parent company" Delcam justifies an article. Perhaps each of the above should be merged into / redirected to Delcam? No need for each individual product to have an article. And keeping them just encourages those responsible for the above four to create articles for each of Delcam's 50 other non-notable products." Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Helaine Head. Content has already been merged into the target. I can't find an elegant way to perform a history merge, however. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable television show. No claim of notability. The extent of apparent of independent reliable coverage is "A ball of space goop crash-lands in a sculptor's studio. Naturally, he molds the goop into three figurines. The figurines come to life, but only the artist can see them. The artist and the goop men team up to go fight crime." Which is not enough and make no claim of significance. Nothing obvious in google. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Michig (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An unannotated list that is better served by Category:Murders in the United States by year. It is also an odd one out. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meat Your Maker. This is an unsourced article on a TV show episode that does not really do anything except give a summary of the episode. No really reason is given why this episode is notable, or why it cannot just be covered in some part of the article on the series.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plot only description of a topic which is not notable due to the absence of secondary coverage in reliable sources. Claritas § 13:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Complete analysis follows.
OK. Argument for deletion (distilled down) is:
Now, we go down the arguments.
So, in the end, the argument with the greatest policy based weight was that the coverage of the event is routine for this class of sports event. The efforts to refute that were flawed by two basic problems:
The efforts to refute WP:NOT#CRYSTAL hinged on finding UFC 157 notable in the first place, so the same problems with evaluating the notability of UFC 157 vs. the notability of Rousey and Carmouche apply.
The interrelationship between USA Today and MMAjunkie.com also weakens all arguments based on diversity of sources.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 23 December 2012 (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 article appears to fail WP:GNG. The citations speak as PR blurbs and therefore fail the "Independent of the subject" criterion. In addition, the event described in the article has yet to occur so we do not have any indication what may happen at the event, therefore WP:CRYSTAL applies in addition to WP:NTEMP as we cannot determine what enduring notability this event may have. In addition WP:NEVENT suggests "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." therefore it is appropriate by our own policies to Delete and Redirect with protection until such time that there is reasonable coverage to pass all of these objections. Hasteur (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wp:deny Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
keep! - enric you may not see the notability as perhaps you have no interest in, and dont completely understand the sport? the preparation behind each card is huge and immense. its not just like two teams going at it, if there is 11 fights there is 22 "teams" that have been preparing for months for each event or card to get the fighters ready to compete. If enduring significance is in question, can the visits each of the older ufc event pages be seen somewhere? I would be interested in the amount of visits the pages get. I also feel that Mtkings comments should not be taken into consideration, i have made comments in these debates in the past and they were edited out of the AFD by him and there is other reports of the same thing happening. that is not a very productive and honest way of making a debate and to me shows that he perhaps is emotionally attached to deletion of ufc articles rather than the wp guidelines & actually making wiki a better place. 182.239.235.186 (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC) regards josh[reply]
Keep First EVER Woman's fight in the history of the company, along with a major LHW Championship contender fight. Seems this AFD is being run by someone with no understanding of the sport, its history or the significance of this card. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mma/2012/12/06/ronda-rousey-meets-liz-carmouche-in-first-ufc-womens-title-fight/1752021/ <----- USA Today article about the milestone main event, http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ronda-rousey-vs-liz-carmouche-160353054--mma.html <---- Yahoo sports (an entity not exactly friendly to the UFC) giving coverage to this fight. Quick google search found me those articles. This event is already receiving coverage for it's main event feature of both the first UFC woman's bout and the first openly gay UFC fighter. Also, cute to see you guys blocked certain sites to stop supporters from posting sources. Examiner also posted an articled referring to Carmouche being openly gay. Guess we know who won when you pull crap like that. 174.3.198.16 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually picked this from a HUffingtonPost article about Liz. I vote *Keep because the event is notable and will have lasting impact for the LBGTQ community. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Time for a new tactic. Argueing to keep this page is pointless because MtKing and Hasteur won't listen to reason. It's time for a new tactic. Contact the Real wikipedia staff at donate@wikimedia.org and let them know that you won't be donating 1 cent to wikipedia until all UFC pages are rightfully restored. Spread the word.119.225.96.189 (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)htww[reply]
Off-topic discussion about hunting witches
|
---|
|
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bio with a distinct shortage of independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional "equation", plot-only description of a fictional element. Claritas § 18:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep as withdrawn by nominator per WP:SK case 1. Warden (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable topic, plot-only fancruft. Claritas § 18:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability - the concept of a demon-human hybrid is not notable, and we have no corresponding article. Claritas § 18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to National Pigeon Service. MBisanz talk 06:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOTNEWS - This note is one of hundreds of thousands of messages sent during the war. It is unlikely to yield historically relevant information if ever decrypted, and its contents are highly unlikely to be notable once current media interest subsides. No references outside of news outlets and blogs.
Unencyclopedic content - verbatim contents of the message in question, primary sources do not belong in an encyclopedia. Technically this is a copyvio since the message is still covered by crown copyright. Fireice (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE through consensus and WP:SNOW. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's a well-written article, there's nothing in here that demonstrates that this criminal defense attorney meets WP:BIO notability guidelines. Author created article about one of his clients as well Robert Ray Fry and a few advertising articles about non-notable companies that were speedily deleted; edit pattern suggests WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would totally disagree the attorney in question doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Lets first consider: 1.) The Attorney in question Represented a number of notable clients in cases which made national/international headlines. 2.) Robert Ray Fry, who was one of his clients is one of the last 2 people on death row in New Mexico. The death Penalty has been repealed. 3.) Robert Ray Fry, assuming he is not spared, will be the last person to die via capital punishment in the state of New Mexico. 4.) From a case law standpoint this attorney is important as decisions in cases in which he has played a key role have been used as precedent in the United States Court system. 5.) The subject in question is therefore important to wiki project law. Meanie (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is a public figure who represents high profile clients, in numerous cases. Per Wiki:Bio A person is presumed notable if he or she is the subject of multiple published secondary sources. - At least 100 newspaper articles, multiple TV interviews (Including the Los Alamos Case(National), Robertson High Hazing Case(Intl Attention),and Robert Ray Fry Trial (Historically significant individual in their own right - though not for good reason). Per Wiki:Bio The sources are intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. - The subject clearly didn't write the media articles, the book about the case, or other media case. Per Wiki:Bio - Needs to be noted for more than one event - Subject is noted for hundreds of cases, including more than a dozen high profile cases spanning 2 decades. Meanie (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1. WP:NOPAY: Assuming Meanie is the author he gets a vote, but what about the Subject himself? Let me state unequivocally I have not nor will I pay Meanie as author or anyone else $1 to advocate against deletion. WP:NOPAY We can safely assume that he advocates because he believes in his articles. At the risk of having a fool for a client, I advocate for myself here.
2. WP:COI re Robert Fry. As the subject of this article I have a conflict of interest when I make changes but my intent is only to fill in details or correct errors. Jamie, the lone naysayer to date, accuses: "Author created article about one of his clients as well Robert Ray Fry" and, in nominating the Fry stub for deletion at the same time, "most likely created as a "companion" article to Fry's lawyer Stephen Aarons in an attempt to boost his perceived notability." I was wholly ignorant of any risk of deletion when I suggested adding Fry, not to pull myself by the bootstraps but because Fry is the first defendant to face not two but three separate death penalty trials; he stands to be the first prisoner ever executed after his jurisdiction abolished the death penalty - if you followed the legislative history you would know that the political compromise was to abolish the death penalty for future cases only if Fry fries first. Passing and signing legislation with one serial killer in mind is fraught with constitutional ex post facto law issues. When one naysayer attacks the author personally, your guiding principles should be verifiability and neutrality of the article itself.
3. Notability. Jamie's only substantive objection, although he attacks more than one facet. Of course I am notable! Notability(people) presumes a person "to be notable if he has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources." Meanie is sifting through several hundred articles quoting me during high profile cases,. Coupled with these hundreds of articles quoting me are thousands discussing my case without mentioning my name. I can't find where the Albuquerque Journal said the Torreon case was the top story of that calendar year among its readership, but the execution of Clark first nEX Mexican executed since 1961 - Fry in line to the be other one, DNA exonerating Rowley from death row, the Los Alamos case triggering a closed session of the House Subcommittee about security at the multi-billion dollar Laboratory -- each are high profile of themselves.
4. Depth of Coverage Basic coverage requires: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Jamie says, "The subject is merely mentioned in a number of sources; there is no significant coverage by third-party reliable sources. ...I will repeat one more time; "mention" != "depth of coverage." Did he bother to read those sources, or does he just assume trial lawyers only deserve mere mention? There is no need to quibble over "multiple independent sources" quoting from courtroom arguments and post-acquittal comments, let's look at a seventeen paragraph article in 1998 -- 'Hit Squad' battles for defendants, url=http://newspaperarchive.com/santa-fe-new-mexican/1988-10-23/page-11?tag=hit+squad+aarons&rtserp=tags/hit-squad-aarons?ndt=ex&pd=23&py=1988&pm=10%7Cnewspaper=Santa Fe New Mexican, date=10/23/1988 -- and another "page one" top of fold article published thirteen years later --Lawyers Feel Duty To Make System Work Outstanding criminal attorneys also enjoy challenge and rewards, Santa Fe New Mexican, 04/22/2001 -- about me and my trial team. Court TV captured my portly person for hours, CBS and last week's Dateline interviewed for minutes, and the Monster Slayer book devoted a chapter to my background and followed the trial step by step. None of these examples are mere passing references.
5. Reliability. In attacking the Fry stub, Jamie complains, "Had you really read WP:BIO or WP:Reliable sources, you'd know that government records don't apply, and neither does a book by a non-notable author." The Monster Slayer author is non-notable, and frankly I don't understand why paperbacks about serial killers sell like hotcakes. But after this complaint, at the risk of turning this beloved article into a Frankenstein, this article now cites Caspar Weinberger (a notable) and his extended memoirs about our foreign policy debate over a quarter century ago in Oxford. In 2001 a British reviewer of the newly released book commented: '"I have no doubt, however, of the highlight of the book. Weinberger recounts a debate he took part in at the Oxford Union in 1984 ...Weinberger gives a nice vignette of the debate ...and quotes his own speech at length ..." Oliver Kamm, April 27, 2002, http://www.amazon.ca/product-reviews/0895261030.
Wiki only requires these basic criteria for notability, but please don't forget the unique breadth (from Anwar Sadat and Weinberger thirty years ago to last week's Dateline interview re Rowley) of public view at least in terms of geography and decade. Thanks for your consideration. Steve Aarons (talk) 12/18/2012 — Aaron095 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep- The subject is notable for the reasons I have previously mentioned. Please see the Stephen Aarons Talk page, I am taking note of where I am changing/adding sources (Im not building Frankenstein - this article could have 700 sources but I know thats too many.) So what I am doing is changing sources about the different cases to ones about the defense Attorney. Of which there are many many many. It is my opinion this article will be even better sourced, and tighter after this debate than it was before. 221 Hits on the ABQ Journal and around 173 hits on the Santa Fe New Mexican plus a litany of other appearances, interviews, etc - and the fact these sources are used in the article makes the subject both notable in the context of New Mexico, and the context of American Criminal Law.Meanie (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Just to note I am in the process of beefing up the references - As some of them don't reference him but there are a good 50 or more in the papers throughout the state - and some national media which do - and not in one specific case. Ill be detailing them over the next 2-3 days as I make the edits. I have purchased access to the paper archives for the area and have discovered Aarrons, in addition to what is on the internet has been cited 221 and 170 times respectively since 1995 in the two major papers in New Mexico - setting aside having been on court TV and done interviews with media on several cases. Perhaps some of the cases aren't notable enough to be in the article but you cant dispute the media cover that: The Cabin Killings, Robert Ray Fry Trials, the Robertson High Hazing Case, and the Quintana case got. They all made national headlines - and in all cases the attorney in question in this article was quoted multiple times by multiple publications. - Which is why I am working on changing out some of the citations because there are better references which will demonstrate notability.Meanie (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Defense attorney Stephen Aarons called Wilkins' trial "Popcorn's last revenge," referring to codefendant Shawn "Popcorn" Popeleski's expected testimony pinning the deaths of a young couple and two children on Wilkins and his buddy, Roy "Eazy" Buchner, 19. In Aarons' theory, it was Popeleski who committed the murders out of revenge after being beaten up and "ranked out" of Albuquerque's 18th Street gang.
Aarons took pains to point out to jurors that neither Popeleski, 19, who was charged as an accomplice in the deaths after being heralded as the state's chief witness, nor Lawrence "Woody" Nieto, 20, who was convicted last month as an accomplice to the murders and sentenced to 1301/2 years, will testify in person. Invoking their Fifth Amendment rights, they will testify only through video and audio tapes and won't be available for cross-examination.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Wilkins and Buchner, the suspected "trigger men," as well as Popeleski. Buchner is scheduled to go to trial Oct. 14. No trial date had been set for Popeleski as of last month. "
Would you not agree if the articles I am using are like this that would meet the criteria of substantial coverage? Meanie (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment WP:SNOW PeterWesco (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List_of_minor_planets:_20001–21000#601. Most in favour of keeping the article are doing so to have it redirected, and those favouring deletion opt to have it redirected. I think a straight redirect is a suitable middle ground here. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable asteroid, one of literally thousands being detected by modern telescopes. No references outside JPL database. Needs to be first detected by new equipment, huge or near earth etc to be notable. -MJH (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this orphan looks to be, at best, a non-notable ancestor of just another English family, and at worst an invention of later antiquarians to give the family a more glorious past. The first three sentences are unsupportable. The next is deceptive in that the Battle Abbey Roll is not considered to be an authentic historical record. The only reference is a non-reliable personal web page. There is nothing here worth reporting in Wikipedia, and nothing worth merging anywhere. Agricolae (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
De-PROD'd by author. "Unremarkable software. Article is purely promotional; software does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion." —Theopolisme 13:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC) What is the requirement for a Freely available piece of software to be treated as notable (User count, age of program, other criteria) ? Ole Kristian Ek Hornnes (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn (non-admin closure) --LlamaAl (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, sorry. The Google Books hits are from guidebooks/tourist guides - "Design from Scandinavia" might be a RS, but if so, it seems to be the only one, she has a single index ref, and the preview isn't working. Nothing obviously RS on her on Google (I specifically searched for "El Nyker Hovedg" too with no success) but someone who reads Danish may be able to find sources in her own language. Appears to fails WP:RS and WP:GNG Mabalu (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a venue for instruction manuals ElKevbo (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, only two external links, one to an an Italian language blog and the other to an English article which has no apparent connection to the subject of the article apart from having the words "economy" and "end of the world"; that is, the article appear to concern the BS about December 21, 2012 while the Roberts article has no connection whatsoever to that. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as hoax (non-admin closure). Huon (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was written in *bad faith* and obviously attack to someone named Justin Patron
The result was Nominator withdrawn (me). (non-admin closure) Mediran talk to me! 10:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As page creator, the article is really non-notable, unsourced, fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG Mediran talk to me! 10:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An unreferenced (save for one wikilink) article about a hobby project. Couldn't find any news or book hits, and while there are many web hits, they are all self-published or in blogs. Doesn't seem to be anything in reliable sources out there. Might be some more things in the future if TechCrunch get hold of it it, but for now it just doesn't seem notable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 will do fine, this is just Youtube, i.e. web content. JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article about what would seem to be some sort of home video that claims to be an upcoming reality show but with no indication of any network that might carry it. The "production" company, KobsterSnow Pictures does not seem to exist. PROD was removed with no explanation by unregistered editor. This should really have been a case for Speedy delete but no suitable category seems to exist Malcolma (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was procedural keep due to the reason for the proposed deletion being invalid. However, the subject of the article is concerned about incorrect information being in the article and something must be done about this. The last time this article was proposed for deletion I advised the subject how to go about getting such information removed. I have now done so again. Nominating an article for deletion is not a substitute to contacting OTRS. If the user contacts OTRS then we can work their concerns out. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Miya Ando requests deletion of the article about herself due to inaccurate and misleading information. Ays0110 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Prod was contested by the journal's editor. VQuakr (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the EBSCO Business Source Complete listing: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=dbaff0ab-7a27-4937-9109-83e546307020%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bth&jid=2ZJI ProQuest ABI/Inform Complete: http://search.proquest.com/publication/43244# JSTOR: citations are common for the short name of the journal as well: "Group+Facilitation": http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicResults?hp=25&la=&so=rel&wc=on&fc=off&acc=off&acc=off&bk=off&pm=off&jo=off&ar=off&re=off&ms=off&gw=jtx&Query=%22Group+Facilitation%22&sbq=%22Group+Facilitation%22&prq=%22Group+Facilitation+A+Research+and+applications+journal%22&mxpg=11&aori=off&vf=jo
I'm not sure what is meant by 'not major' and 'not selective', but when Proquest approached us for listing in 2006 and EBESCO in 2007 they were two of the major indices around. I do appreciate things have changed in such a long period of time since. They did select our journal for listing, not the other way around. I know you won't necessarily appreciate Google Scholar as a valuable third party source however, here are the citations on what is predominantly a closed access journal: http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?as_q=&as_publication=group+facilitation The journal has been submitted to Scopus, which can take up to 6 months for review I believe. One key challenge we have faced as an Editorial Board in listing on the Web of Science is the requirement for access to the password protected members-only section of the iaf-world.org website. The IAF Board were not so keen on access to the members-only section going to an unnamed individual for the purposes of an index listing. By "Reader Requests" I mean here's one example from Belgrade in Serbia:
Email with subject line "Wikipedia pages"
|
---|
--- On Fri, 8/10/12, <Name_Deleted> <<Name_Deleted>@gmail.com> wrote: From: <Name_Deleted> <<Name_Deleted>@gmail.com> Subject: Wikipedia pages To: "Stephen Thorpe" Date: Friday, August 10, 2012, 9:35 PM Hi Stephen. Hope you are well - sure you are busy :) I recently discovered that there wasn't a page about IAF on Wikipedia and so I just created one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_of_Facilitators I checked to see if there was an entry for the journal on Wikipedia and see that there isn't, so I wondered if you might want to create one. There are quite a few guidelines about creating Wikipedia pages but most of them seem to boil down to making it informational and neutral rather than promotional and partial. I wondered if you might want to create a page for the Journal. Best regards, <Name_Deleted> -- <Name_Deleted> MA Human Security & Peacebuilding, Certified Professional Facilitator Share in building hope at http://hopebuilding.pbworks.com and http://hopebuilding.wordpress.com View my pictures: <Name_Deleted> Visit http://hopebuilding.wordpress.com/ |
Can you please advise: I don't want to waste anyone's time - should I just wait until it's listed in Scopus and then come back as it will then meet the notoriety requirement? I can address the need for adding independent references to and possibly from the article if allowed. Stephenthorpe (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Stephen[reply]
Would references in other books qualify? facilitator blogs? review articles on academic journals? It's a reasonably niche arena for academic journals on groupwork and GFJ is the only international one and it's published by the global association in this emerging professional arena with 1,300+ members in over 70 countries. If Scopus or Web of Science is all that counts and EBSCo and ProQuest, Google scholar have issues then I'm not sure there is any opening for possibility made available here?222.154.11.12 (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Stephen[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A prima facie violation of WP:DIRECTORY. Programming evolves, and I fail to see how this article has any encyclopedic value whether as a historical record or as a list of current programs being broadcast. We are not a TV Guide. Delete this unreferenced and indiscriminate list please. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 08:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against more notable opponents in the UFC, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is a clear majority for keeping per WP:MMANOT, although there is also consensus that he only just satisfies the proposed notability guideline. Michig (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against more notable opponents in the UFC, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against more notable opponents in the UFC, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the article stands I think "Wikipedia is not a directory". Damn that 3 fight rule and all of :mmanot .Of course it is of no consequence, but I'd like to support this guy cuz I'm a hardcore mma fan/fighter but I havent even heard of him. In fact I did a double take because I thought he was Rob Emerson. Delete PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep
He passes WP:EFFECT with his memes Plus he was on TV for awhile. Why does everyone pretend that being on TV for weeks at a time doesn't matter? Please see WP:TUF for a thorough explanation as to why these fights do matter.PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it matters to anybody, but happened to be looking through some MMA forums, and people are upset about the amount of articles being deleted on Wikipedia because they like to use it as a source as reference. http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/wiki-deleted-ufc-155-event-2257217/ Wiki operates off of donations and if people aren't coming to wiki, they won't be getting donations. How about we stop trying to delete everything and work on improving it. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Lane broke down in tears following the loss, his first as a professional fighter. The unemployed father felt he let his family down, but is determined to come back better and stronger." then it goes on to say "After the fight, Coach Nelson complained to Dana White that Marunde didn’t actually make weight. White was dumbfounded by the allegation. “You can’t fix stupid,” commented White. “If the commissioner said he made 170, then he made 170.” " PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The "keep" arguments are weak. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Per WP:RELIST, only three relists should occur. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — ṞṈ™ 04:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This AFD has languished for nearly a month without any editors contributing to the discussion, so I think it's time to close it based on the information currently available. The nominators rationale for deletion seems sound and the subject does not appear to meet the general notablity guideline. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently a niche, nonnotable award. No independent references in article, so it fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. I initially placed a prod tag on this, but it was removed without comment and without adding any sources. MrOllie (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Tucker Max. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This kindle download doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. The first two references have to do with earlier works by the author and the other two link to Amazon and the author's website. Not finding evidence that this is independently notable. Gobōnobō + c 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And:
Non-notable products. AVR-2800 article mainly consists of specifications. Contested PRODs by DGG who suggests a merge. Another editor had endorsed the PRODs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product. Contested PROD by DGG who suggests a merge. Another editor had endorsed the PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Michig (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear notability; unable to locate significant coverage in references. Zujua (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article's author seems to be a single purpose account to promote Gratton and his wife Sarah-Jayne Gratton, who both claim to be experts in promotion using social media. True to form, this article is supported almost in its entirety by WP:PRIMARY sources, or sources written (or created) by Grattons. It even has a promotional quote from a book that won't be published till 2013. The one source with any reliability is the article in the local town paper. This in itself doesn't make Gratton notable. Author has been given plenty of opportunity to improve the article but has refused to do so. It remains as a promotional page and I think its time is up. Sionk (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus about what to do with this material. Nyttend's argument rules out deletion per WP:ATD, but the community is undecided between keeping and merging. Interested editors may wish to pursue consensus for a merge on the talk page. NAC—S Marshall T/C 16:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
An article about a small neighborhood in Buffalo, New York. It does not seem to be notable in any way, and is unsourced. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added sources today. Although this is a small article, it is a starting place to add more information on this Buffalo neighborhood. Tommycw1 (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Avaya. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This is yet another of the many many Avaya product pages. These all seem to be PR pages. Wikipedia is not a platform to showcase every little Avaya product ever produced. Non-notatable, trivial, (Not to mention spammy) and adds nothing to Wikipedia. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. There isn't a clear consensus here, with valid arguments on both sides, though those in favour of keeping are in a slight majority. Michig (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely minor character, is mentioned in one line of The Lord of the Rings. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 21:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a very insignificant thing and is not well written. I don't see how it can be improved much. United States Man (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARTIST, WP:ORG Smacktina —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to R U the Girl. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. Subject won a reality TV show, and is only notable for that one event. Her singles and album failed to chart, and she has received little coverage thereafter, so this article fails WP:MUSBIO. As such, the subject is not notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. — ξxplicit 23:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flat-out fails WP:GNG and WP:G11. It has not been a subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Period. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term Cryojet does NOT appear to be commonly used as defined in the article, and there are no references in the article to help make it verifiable.
This article was created almost entirely by a single individual, and it is also the only article on Wikipedia edited by that individual. The image linked in the article was also created by the same individual, and is described on the Wikimedia Commons page as his "Own Work". There may have been some research done on this process by the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, but it is not clear to me if this research ever resulted in a useful or notable industrial process.
A quick internet search of CryoJet + cutting or machining did not produce any useful information that I could find to support the article. The closest thing I could find is a technology called "IceJet" which uses CO2 gas to create ice particles for industrial cleaning, decontaminating, or polishing surfaces, but not for cutting.
CryoJet appears to be a registered trade-mark for a company that makes a special-effect machines to produce plumes of "cryo fog" for live entertainment venues such as stage shows and concerts, not an industrial cutting process.
I think this article may be a good candidate for deletion. -- Burnishe (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's just two giant quotes. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest, Prof. Squirrel, that you learn how to deal with copyright violations when people just blam non-free content over the top of existing articles, take in hand some of the tens of sources that are cited in older versions of the article, and have a go at writing. It's not as if you don't have, right in front of you, an existing encyclopaedia article showing what should be covered in the article. ☺
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request for deletion as per Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Possibly self-promotion of person who is not notable, but would like someone to give it another check. Acmilan10italia (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— albeiro777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Prestige Communications (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Re: Sionk - Stuff Magazine is a Boston-based publication, owned and distributed by the Phoenix Communications Group - highly respected and "reliable" within Massachusetts. (Feel free to google it.) As for Let's Talk Magazine, it's neither a physical publication or a public/profitable group, but is essentially an online/social media effort and fairly popular in Boston, especially amongst the colleges/college students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestige Communications (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article about a musical recording which fails notability per WP:NALBUMS. Notability is not inherited. - MrX 02:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Wonder Girls. Courcelles 01:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not very well-known member of Wonder Girls. She left the group in 2010 and nothing has been heard from her since then. I think it's better to be merged to Wonder Girls Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page contains no references and has been near-orphaned for years. MrMarmite (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to SAP (EP). (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND: #1, has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works, though I did find a Rolling Stones article here that really tries, in one sentence, to puff up Layne's "resume" with a mention of Alice Mudgarden. #2, "Right Turn" was not a single (or so I gather; being on the Black Hawk Down soundtrack doesn't make it a single, correct?). And so forth. I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet "Alice Mudgarden" wasn't incorporated as an official band name company (aren't bands essentially tiny companies with employees?) and I wouldn't know how to check. But opinion aside, I don't see how this article is notable. Of course, according to WP:MUSIC, that doesn't mean the article has to be removed, but I'm suggesting it because this information is essentially covered in the article Sap (EP). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I love the SAP (EP) and it's track Right Turn, but this band really isn't a band it was a concept... sort of... whatever it isn't notable regardless. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This company seems inconsequential, in that it lacks significant coverage beyond the article in Variety and apparently inherits its notability via the equipment and properties that it auctioned. Mephistophelian (contact) 08:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It's very unusual to close as delete when the nom withdraws, but: 1/there is nothing notable except the DSC, and there iz no evidence of it. 2/I am not convinced the sources are substantial, except the obit. 2a We can use editorial obits as a source, the prohibition is on relying on ones written by the family, but I doubt the reliability here. 3/ The article is not neutral 4/ It seems to me that the way it reads it is a copyvio DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ANYBIO article seems to be based on family folklore and a single database entry, no editorial discussion of this individual. Receipt of this award alone does not establish notability unless further cited. Sorry. -MJH (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will scan and update primary source. What specific items are requested? Details on him being the last survivor of his platoon? That he was declared dead by the US, and arrived home to his grieving parents? That he was a noted celebrity in Boston for months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akatie (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. There is also a complete lack of sourcing required to meet WP:NOTABILITY. The "masterpiece" written by this author is a poem that is also similarly not notable or sourced. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.") or 4 (
"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.") of WP:AUTHOR or covering the author extensively otherwise. However, I see that the sources cited by In ictu oculi and Bonkers seem to fulfill these, so I am !voting...