The result was speedy delete (CSD G1: Patent Nonsense). PeaceNT 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this fails WP:NOTDICT, but I can't find a single reference of the word 'Compz' used in this manner. So probably fails WP:NEO. (Also, what's with the random person!?) ARendedWinter 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was a clear consensus to delete. -- Denelson83 05:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No real content, fails WP:CBALL. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 16:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC Rackabello 23:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 01:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Rackabello 23:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — the sources provided (and added the article during the AFD action) do provide satisfaction for the general notability criterion. Template:cleanup-afd will be affixed to the article in accordance with several comments below. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summary of a non-notable graphic novel. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:SOURCES Rackabello 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--JForget 00:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would make a very lovely school essay, but seems to be utterly unsourced WP:OR. Also has some severe POV issues. ARendedWinter 23:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MaxSem 12:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list containing trivial info, violates WP:DIRECTORY Chris! ct 23:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax, no obvious mention of this Howard Enterprises among the numerous ones produced by a google search - the bio of the owner seems to be that of a teenager which makes this somewhat less likely to be true. Carlossuarez46 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Verrai 03:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable knot drawing program. -- RHaworth 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. A Traintalk 14:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability, I think, and most of it is unreferenced. Anderson was rumoured to have been involved in the slaying of Tupac Shakur, but was murdered himself before anything like evidence or an arrest was going to be looked into. Page has only two or three vague references, but I still think it should be deleted per WP:V because almost all of the content is unsourced. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Passover, with history intact. Whether, what, and where to merge is, as always, an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Passover. Presents a theory on the origin of Passover which could be incorporated in a section of that article and results in a situation in which academic viewpoints are in one article and religious viewpoints in another, which the WP:POVFORK guideline is designed to prevent. --Shirahadasha 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Obvious soapboxing/personal essay - previously deleted and this AFD was previously closed. Mr.Z-man 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd nominate this rather than add a speedy tag because it does offer some interesting information but I don't believe it's worthy of an article by itself and should perhaps be merged with Nigeria RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 22:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second listing for this office tower. The article does not cite any verfiable claim to notability, but I can tell you that it was designed by same firm architects responsible for the Opéra Bastille. My view is that WP is not a real estate listing site, and without secondary sources, this type of article should be discouraged. --Gavin Collins 22:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 16:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly fails WP:BIO. It is nicely referenced, but, really, what makes this fellow so special we should have an encyclopedia entry on him? As far as I can tell, nothing. Biruitorul 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 00:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is trivial OR and the below section on Peter Costello is a WP:POVFORK to avoid WP:BLP by it not appearing in Peter Costello Shot info 22:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 16:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a supposed future album with no sources. Most of the article is unsourced guest appearances and is too crystall-bally at the moment. Spellcast 22:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 - copyright infringement. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a legitimate article on this subject could be written, but this isn't it. This is, in fact, blatant advertising ripped off the website - perhaps speedy deletion material, even. Biruitorul 22:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Local TV reporter, no assertion of notability, no references, reads like a resume. Biruitorul 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NFT --Haemo 23:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article by a student about his "theorem" that is little more than an application of basic algebra. I prod'ed it since it didn't seem to fit a speedy category--the prod was removed by the author with the explanation "New credible mathematical discovery". Non-notable subject made up in school one day. --Finngall talk 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Although the articles desperatedly need sources, the subject of the article is sufficiently notable to meet WP:MUSIC, and, therefore, his albums are also notable enough to have their own articles. Non-admin closure. --Agüeybaná 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only asser of notability is that the artists worked with Three 6 Mafia. The article also does not cite any sources. Tasc0 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor local meteorologist, no references, no assertion of notability. Biruitorul 22:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus that this is inherently a WP:BLP violation or WP:COATRACK or whathaveyou. However, there seems to be some considerable duplication over various articles covering this topic, and a broader look at how we cover it might be worthwhile and help solve the concerns of people wanting to delete this article. W.marsh 14:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E. This afd is a followup to those at Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa) and three other American states. Corvus cornix 22:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy Delete--JForget 23:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of default "player ratings" in FIFA 08. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this is mostly (if not completely) original research, and there are about 500-600 teams in the game (making this list almost impossible to even finish, let alone maintain), I think this article should be deleted. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep But article does seem to need a major rewrite... still, there's a consensus for an article on this topic, and the current one can be scraped down to the stub suggested below by "ZZ" if nothing else. W.marsh 14:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt contested prod. Article doesn't establish any particular notability for concept, and was tagged unreferenced for the last 6 months. PROD removed without comment, complete rewrite in <12 hours. Article went from badly written how-to guide to press release. History of article is overwhelmingly link-spam and unencyclopedic writing. Since this is a vaguely defined, promotional buzzword, it's unlikely an article can be written that isn't promoting someone. Violates: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:NOT. Horrorshowj 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. Crisis Management is an important feature to be found in any organisations that recognises the risks it faces and most likely has also built up its business continuity plans. It should not be confused with Emergency Management which has more to do with fire fighting insofar that emergency management it is about tackling an emergency - only. Crisis Management on the other hand, is much more about confirming, controlling and communicating throughout the entire acute period of any catastrophe which could easily last for days or even weeks. Very many organisations have already set up Crisis Management Teams specifically for this purpose to ensure staff are accounted for, stakeholders reassured, someone gives the right message to the media, the correct levers are pulled to trigger an accurate business continuity response and so on. The CM Team would probably liaise with the emergency services when or if, they arrive. Of course some corporate dramas do not require the blue lights to turn up. For example, wide spread public warnings, pandemics, urgent product recalls, financial collapse and so on. However, these scenarios certainly do require crisis management skills. I suggest anyone who doubts what I am saying goes, for example, onto the UK Govt. Dept. for business enterprise and regulatory reform (was the DTI...)
http://www.dti.gov.uk/sectors/infosec/infosecadvice/incidentmanagement/crisismanagement --Patrick56 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this. Ref above - as the author of the latest and more comprehensive version (as at 8 October 2007 and subsequently expanded) I have noted what others have said here and an hour ago submitted an amended and more explanatory version.--Patrick56 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)--Patrick56 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge - this article is largely meaningless unsourced speculation and reads like the script for an informercial. The few salient points in the article should be stripped out and moved into Crisis and/or Risk Management. Torc2 23:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Type in "crisis management" on Google and you will see there are already 2,010,000 entries. It's naive to suggest this is a meaningless or speculative subject. It is likewise inaccurate to assume crisis management is just emergency or risk management. Surely the purpose of Wikipedia is to explain terms such as this? Many people, organisations, symposia, conferences and books have crisis management as a core value. Take for example:
--Patrick56 09:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several more external links have just been added to the article following comments on this page.--Patrick56 14:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course I made changes to my first draft and have not pretended otherwise. These follow various constructive reactions on this page. However, I really do not plan make any more changes as some contributors are, in my opinion, missing the entire point about crisis management. Fortunately the British Standards Institute are not amongst them. I am informed that early next month they are having a meeting specifically to discuss crisis management gaining further recognition by now being considered for a precise British Standard. This plus other external crisis management links (UK Government and others) seem to me to contradict those few people on this page who believe the subject to be a 'gimmick' or 'meaningless unsourced speculation' or a 'promotional buzzword'. I had thought the raison d’être of Wikipedia was to help explain issues like this? --Patrick56 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This underwent an AFD in July, with the following nomination rationale: The article has no defined criteria for inclusion, and as such, is useless as a list. From WP:LIST - “Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria”. The article's ambiguous title means it can't provide this. Further, the article is predominantly unsourced, and I believe the calculation of the population densities by users (as stated at the top of the article) can be considered original research. This is true, but the AFD was closed as no consensus since some people said things like "keep but define criteria". This has not happened, and as such it is still a collection of random facts as described above. Punkmorten 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Contested or not, a speedy is a speedy. Punkmorten 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First a contested speedy... then a contested prod... so now it washes up here. Patent vanity page with no legitimate assertion of notability whatsoever (although full marks for the attempt to puff it up into something that looks like more than the sum of its parts). — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Notability seems addressed pretty definitively, but the article needs a lot of work to remove conflict of interest (COI), and then needs to be tucked under the wing of the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) crew. Right now the talk page has no tagging at all, so there's work to be done. If need be the article should be stubbed out and rewritten from scratch to get the COI under control. If need be, User:Mignucci may need counseling on best practices --++Lar: t/c 04:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an architect. I nominated it for speedy deletion a while back, which was declined. After consideration and the limited research I'm able to do, I don't think this architect is notable. I can find references such as "created by Mignucci..." but no real reviews of his work, and I'm unable to examine the works listed at the bottom as references. Unless I've missed something, which is certainly possible, this article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CRITERIA 1 The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.
Mignucci, is one of seven members of the Governor’s Council on Planning and Urbanism, is also one of the authors of the Economic Development and Government Transformation Plan for Puerto Rico. See below.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GOVERNMENT TRANSFORMATION PLAN FOR PUERTO RICO (PDF) Economic Development and Government Transformation Plan for Puerto Rico: Architect Andrés Mignucci, FAIA, Architect Thomas Marvel FAIA, Dr. Gabriel Moreno, Atty. Omar Jiménez, Architect Liz Melendez www.gobierno.pr/NR/rdonlyres/1A90948D-8AF2-4827-B92F-C938378C1620/0/PDETGEnglishVersion_Nov906_FINAL.pdf]
CRITERIA 2 The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.
In two recent books on Iberoamerican Architecture one in Madrid and one in Mexico, Andrés Mignucci’s work has been highlighted as exemplary in the current architectural discourse in Latin America, Spain and Portugal.
see Gras de Mereles,Louise Noëlle (see bio in Wikipedia German), Arquitectos Iberoamericanos Siglo 21, Fomento Cultural Banamex, Mexico DF, 2006.
Rispa, Raul, Arquitectura Iberoamericana, Madrid, Tanais Editores, October 2004.
Also see
Segre, Roberto, “Arquitetura hispano-americana na mudança de Milênio. A globalização fragmentada: idioma comum, caminhos divergentes” in Arquitextos, Sao Paolo, June 2003.
Montaner, Josep Ma. & Muxi, Zaida, “San Juan: Laboratorio Metropolitano” en Cultura(s) 153, La Vanguardia, pp. 22-23, 26 Mayo 2005, Barcelona.
CRITERIA 3
The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1].
Mignucci is the author/editor of Arquitectura Contemporanea en Puerto Rico 1976-1992, one of the few books on contemporary Puerto Rican architectural history. He is also the co-author of Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930, on traditional architecture in the Dominican Republic. (Mignucci, A., Rigau, J., and Martinez, E., Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930, AIA Puerto Rico, San Juan, 1990).
Other publications and articles by or about Andrés Mignucci include the following:
Acosta, Candida, “Santiago tendrá un Gran Parque Central” in Listín Diario, 18 August 2002, pp.1/18.
Alonso, María Elena, “La Propuesta Ganadora Integra Paisaje, Urbanismo y Arquitectura” in Habitat, Nº1, October 2002, p.26.
Alonso, María Elena, “Premian Diseño Ambiental y Urbano Para Santiago” in Diario Libre, 25 September 2002, p.36.
Campodrón, Teresa, “Andrés Mignucci: The Symbolic Garden / El Jardín Simbólico” in Santa & Cole, Santa & Cole Editores, Barcelona, October 2003.
De Carlo, Giancarlo (ed.), “Andrés Mignucci: Construire Nei Tropici” in Spazio e Societá, No. 84, Milano, October-December 1998, pp. 94-97.
Del Cueto, Beatriz “Formando Ambiente/Making Places” in American Architectural Foundation Newsletter, Fall 1991.
Driscoll, John & Melendez, Liz, “The Revitalization of Traditional Urban Centers in Puerto Rico”, Center for Urban Development Studies, Harvard Design School, May 2004.
Fiedler, M.L. (ed), “Parque de los Niños” in Entorno, Colegio de Arquitectos de PR, Vol. 7, July 2001, pp. 8-12.
Fiedler, M.L. (ed), “Escuela de Bellas Artes de Mayaguez” in Entorno, Colegio de Arquitectos de PR, Vol. 13, 2003, pp. 12-13.
Gonzalez, Santiago, “Parque de Santiago será mayor pulmón ecológico de la ciudad” in Listín Diario, 26 March 2002, p.8.
David Gosling, “The Evolution of American Urban Design : A Chronological Anthology”, Academy Editions, London, 2002, p.155.
Habraken, N.J. with Aldrete-Hass,J.A., Chow, R., Hille, T., Krugmeier,P., Lampkin, M., Mallows, A., Mignucci, A., Takase, Y., Weller, K., and Yokouchi, T., The Grunfeld Variations, A Methodological Approach to the Design of Urban Tissues, Laboratory of Architecture & Planning, MIT, Whalen Press, 1980.
Habraken, N.J., “Architecture and Agreements- A report on research for new design methods” in Kenchiku Bunka”, vol. 42, no. 486, April 1987, pp.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Notes on the Associative Form of (Some) Spanish Towns” in Black Rose Review, no.10, Winter 1983, pp.
Mignucci, A. and Hille, T., Ranges of Continuity: Eleven Towns in Spain and Portugal, Grusfeld Foundation / Laboratory of Architecture & Planning, Cambridge, MA. 1983.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Reclaiming Ballajá” in Places, vol.5, no. 2, 1988, pp. 3-17.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Recuperando Ballajá” in Plerus, vol. XXI, 1988-89, pp.123-139.
Mignucci, A., Rigau, J., and Martinez, E., Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930, AIA Puerto Rico, San Juan, 1990.
Mignucci, Andrés, Arquitectura Contemporanea en Puerto Rico 1976-1992, AIA Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1992.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Inhabiting Shadows: Notes on the Tropics as Place” in Places, Vol. 12 / No. 3, Spring 1999, pp.38-42.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Urbanismo Estratégico” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.76-78.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Puerto Rico Urbano” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.53-55.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Codex Urbans” in Escofet SA, Enric Pericas (ed.) Junio 2005, pp.140-141, Barcelona.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Lamar 557 / Casa Vivas” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 2, No.5, September 1997, pp.70-75.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Parque de los Niños” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.112-116.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Parque Antonia Quiñones” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.117-119.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Parque del Indio” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.120-121.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Santo Cristo de los Milagros” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 7, No.13, January 2002, pp.122-124.
Mignucci, Andrés y Moré Gustavo, “Parque Metropolitano de Santiago” in Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Year 8, No.15, January 2003, pp.85-94.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Isabela: Plan Estrategico de Revitalización” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Moré, Gustavo (ed.), Septiembre 2005, pp.103-104.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Isabela: Plaza Pública” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Moré, Gustavo (ed.), Septiembre 2005, pp.105-106.
Mignucci, Andrés, “Isabela: Plaza del Mercado” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Moré, Gustavo (ed.), Septiembre 2005, pp.107-108.
Mignucci, Andrés, “La Ventana al Mar” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.109-114.
Mignucci, Andrés; Sánchez, Ilia; Bonnin Javier, “Riberas del Bucaná II & III” en Archivos de Arquitectura Antillana, Año 9, No.22, Septiembre 2005, pp.115-119.
Montaner, Josep Ma. & Muxi, Zaida, “San Juan: Laboratorio Metropolitano” en Cultura(s) 153, La Vanguardia, pp. 22-23, 26 Mayo 2005, Barcelona.
Moya, Rómulo (ed.), “Casa Vivas” in Casas Latinoamericanas, Ediciones Trama, Quito, 2003, pp.126-127.
Noëlle Gras de Mereles, Louise, Arquitectos Iberoamericanos Siglo 21, Fomento Cultural Banamex, Mexico DF, 2006.
Peguero, Reynaldo, “Parque de Santiago: Icono de una Metropolis” in Listín Diario, 2 September 2002, p.19.
Peralta, Leoncio, “Santiago se convertirá en gran ciudad jardín” in Listín Diario, 18 August 2002, p.18.
Rispa, Raul, “La Ventana al Mar” in IV Arquitectura Iberoamericana, Tanais Editores, Madrid, October 2004.
Ronzino, Maickel, “El Parque del Futuro” in El Caribe, 14 September 2002, p.6-7.
Russell, James S., AIA, “Will A New Wave Of Tropical Modernism Restore San Juan's Luster?” in Architectural Record, July, 2002.
Santa & Cole (ed),“Andrés Mignucci Giannoni” in Enciclopedia de Diseño, Santa & Cole Editores, Barcelona, 2003.
Schneider-Wessling, Erich, “Going to Ground” in The Architectural Review, No. 1145, July, 1992, pp.64-67.
Schneider-Wessling, Erich, “Bayer Informationszentrum” in Bauwelt, Heft 24 / Stadtbauwelt 114, Berlin,1992.
Schneider-Wessling, Erich, “Bayer Informationszentrum” in Form & Light, Ernest Sonn Verlag, Berlin, 1993.
Segre, Roberto, “Arquitetura hispano-americana na mudança de Milênio. A globalização fragmentada: idioma comum, caminhos divergentes” in Arquitextos, Sao Paolo, June 2003.
Serna, David (ed),“Casa Vivas” in Escala, No. 175, Bogotá, Colombia, July, 1996, pp.26-27.
CRITERIA 6 The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Andres Mignucci was elected as a FELLOW of the AIA in 2005. There are currently 74,000 architect members of the AIA of which, in the history of the AIA, only 2,500 have been elected as Fellows of the Institute. In he year 2005, alongside Mignucci, Santiago Calatrava - AIA Gold Medalist; Thom Mayne - Pritzker Award Winner; and Toshiko Mori - Head of Harvard’s Graduate School of Design were also elected. You cannot be in such company without being notable. The American Institute of Architects said the following in its induction press release.
Washington, D.C., February 25, 2005 --The American Institute of Architects (AIA) elevated 66 architects to its prestigious College of Fellows, an honor awarded to members who have made contributions of national significance to the profession. Andrés Mignucci, FAIA, of San Juan, Puerto Rico, was elected to receive this honor because of his contributions to the field of design. Mr. Mignucci has enriched the profession by integrating the disciplines of architecture, urban design and landscape architecture in the creation of urban environments with a sense of place, human scale, and environmental responsibility. His work reflects a commitment to the role of public space as an integral part of people’s lives, as a setting for social and cultural exchange, and as a vital component in the structure of our cities and towns. In addition, his leadership through public service and teaching has made significant contributions in extending knowledge of the profession to a larger public.
Out of a membership of more than 74,000, there are fewer than 2,500 AIA members distinguished with the honor of fellowship. It is conferred on architects who have made significant contributions in the following areas: the aesthetic, scientific, and practical efficiency of the profession; the standards of architectural education, training, and practice; and other related professional organizations; advancement of living standards of people through an improved environment; and to society through significant public service. [19]
Andres Mignucci's honors and awards include the following:
HONORS
FELLOW of the AIA Washington DC, USA, 2005
FELLOW of Institute for Urban Design New York City, NY, USA, 2005
Chandler Prize for Excellence in Architectural Design Boston Society of Architects, 1982
President’s Fellowship University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico, 1979-81
AWARDS
2006 First Prize-Urban Design: Parque Metropolitano de Santiago (with Gustavo Moré) Bienal de Arquitectura de Santo Domingo.
2005 Bronze Medal: La Ventana al Mar Bienal de Miami + Beach, Miami.
2004 Finalist: La Ventana al Mar IV Ibero-American Architecture Biennale, Madrid, Spain.
2004 Mention of Honor: La Ventana al Mar AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
2002 First Prize: Parque Metropolitano de Santiago (with Gustavo Moré) International Design Competition, Santiago, Dominican Republic.
2002 Landscape Design Award / Paysage: Parque de los Niños Martinique Architecture Biennale, Fort de France, Martinique
2002 Grand Prize / Premio Nacional de Arquitectura: Escuela de Bellas Artes de Mayaguez. VII Puerto Rico Architecture Biennale, San Juan, PR
2001 Grand Prize / Premio Nacional de Arquitectura: Parque de los Niños VI Puerto Rico Architecture Biennale, San Juan, PR
2001 Honor Award: Parque de los Niños AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico
2001 URBE Award for Excellence in Architecture: Parque de los Niños Urbe Design Awards, San Juan, Puerto Rico
1999 Mention of Honor: Santo Cristo de los Milagros AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico
1998 Mention of Honor: Cooperativa Gasolinera Cayeyana AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico
1997 Honor Award: Casa Vivas AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico
1997 Mention of Honor: Casa Vivas IV Puerto Rico Architecture Biennale, San Juan, Puerto Rico
1997 Mention of Honor: Lamar 557 AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico
1996 Honor Award: Casa Hopgood AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico
1992 Mention of Honor: Conjunto de Viviendas Bayamón 831 AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico
1990 Special Award: Arquitectura Dominicana 1890-1930 (with J. Rigau and E. Martinez) Special Research Award, III Bienal de Arquitectura de Santo Domingo, RD
1990 Honor Award: Casa sobre una Hondonada AIA Design Awards, AIA Puerto Rico Chapter, San Juan, Puerto Rico
1986 First Prize: Informationszentrum, Bayer AG (with Erich Schneider-Wessling and Ilse Walter), Köln, Germany
Maribel ortiz 21:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Contested or not, a speedy is a speedy. Punkmorten 21:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bio-page that doesn't assert notability and doesn't sound notable at all either. Anon-contested ((db-bio)) (nom by me), so here we are in AfD-land. DMacks 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ballery. Album was scheduled for release almost a year ago and still hasn't come out. The vast majority of the article is speculation (see "Speculation and leaked tracks" section). Album still doesn't have a release date on their record label's website. Of course, I am all for re-creation of the article once the album is released. Precious Roy 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as patently non-notable per WP:CSD A7 and per WP:SNOW. Qwghlm 09:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to just be a list of players, and a possible list of scores. This page lacks significance in accordance to wikipedia's policies. This page has no history of sigificant information as well. Anyone can agree/disagree here, or change the tag to speedy deletion if necessary. The tag should not be removed, instead, read the deletion tag and place the appropriate tag on the article. BeanoJosh 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two unrelated non-notable schools that happen to have the same name. Unable to find multiple reliable sources to show any notability. Basil Richards 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 19:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an incomplete list, and likely never will be complete (despite Wikipedia being a perpetual work-in-progress). The first nomination resulted in a no consensus, so I'd like to see if one can be achieved the second time around. No real !vote from me either way, this is somewhat procedural to determine if WP:NOT#DIR is applicable. Burntsauce 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 15:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:BIO, article is overwhelmingly the product of edits by the subject (see User talk:DrPetronix). See also WP:AUTO & WP:COI. References are from the subject's own website. Is a redirect (inappropriately, I might add) of Sociopathic, which is how I found it in the first place. AlexeiSeptimus 20:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. A Traintalk 14:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to pass notability requirements (honors in field, etc. ) Avi 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom; I've just declined a speedy on this - reason given was "All pertinent information is on the KBWF article. This page should not exist, its incarnation as "Z95.7" is not notable enough to stand on its own, and there is little content here. What content is here is already repeated in other articles." I agree entirely with this & think it's a pointless content fork, but can't find a way to shoehorn it into any speedy criteria. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable neologism. I can't find any indication that this is a commonly used term. The two references in this article do NOT use the term. A Google search only brings up various blogs and discussion pages where people speculate that such a term should exist 23skidoo 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G3. I consider adding deliberate nonsense hoaxes to be vandalism. This was part of a walled garden. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another lame hoax from regular "alleged troll" (must AGF) Llonsdale (talk · contribs). Since "hoax" isn't a speedy criteria, wasting everyone's time bringing it here. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Category already exists. A Traintalk 14:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting deletion for a number of reasons, primary that WP:NOT a directory, and given the strong lack of encyclopedic context here, Mediawiki categories are much better suited for the job. Second is that this list is being used to circumvent a number of previous AFDs to advertise for dance games that have been deleted (and re-deleted), but this is only a supplemental reason. Categories fix both problems with one stone. Burntsauce 18:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of licensed manga in English. —Verrai 20:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list is redundant with Category:manga series and it's subcategories. A list of all manga is impossible to ever complete. Already created more manageable alternative: List of licensed manga in English (after discussion on talk page).
See also:
Ninja neko 17:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If anyone wants these in their userspace to try to improve (and not just have a copy), contact me. Mr.Z-man 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and plot summary. In-universe prose makes it inappropriate to merge into Galactic Empire (Star Wars). EEMeltonIV 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating for similar reason
The content on this page is already covered in other articles linked from the main Galactic Empire article. --EEMeltonIV 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 16:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article with no reliable sources or evidence of notability (his reputation as a "ladies man" [sic] notwithstanding). -- Merope 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 16:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant self-promotion, article's creator is named in article as founder of business SteveBaker 17:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MaxSem 12:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This film fails to be notable per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A Google search with the title and the writers' names for the keywords show only two other links besides Wikipedia links. As a result, there is no indication that this film has received multiple and significant coverage by reliable sources. The film also does not have a listing at the Internet Movie Database, which would be a step toward notability. Basically, it has nonexistent presence outside its official site and Myspace blog. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion nomination:The list is arbitrary and shows no real discrimination in deciding what to be included. Plus, what makes a name English? Insanely broad, entirely unverifiable. As Bob Marley said, you've got to kill it before it grows... Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources can be found for "Bell Performance", "Bell Additives", or "R.J. Bell". Non-notable company. Sasha Callahan 06:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep/Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no sources, and I'm having difficulty finding any online. Notability seems somewhat shaky, particularly due to the lack of references. If sources could be found for those claims, then this may be OK. Also written from a very non-neutral point of view, and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A Traintalk 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. Appears to be nothing more than crystal-ballism. Acalamari 16:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 20:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable song from The Dutchess. It is not a single, and the article even says this. Seems to be crystal-ballism, and POV as well. Article was initially prodded but it was removed. Acalamari 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was nominated for speedy deletion, but I declined, as I have a feeling that this editor won't let it go peacefully. Thus I take it to AFD to get a clear consensus from the jury... SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 16:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing International Alphabet Number Value for deletion. The only reference cited is a broken link. A Google search on the title produces no hits besides Wikipedia. It's an interesting idea, with some basis in ancient numerological practice, but the article seems to be original research/neologism. I had indicated concern about the lack of a reference on the discussion page back in January and there has been no response. Unless this AfD stirs up some significant improvement, I think the article should go. --agr 15:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect by Onnaghar - 14:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page reads like an essay and is most probably an OR article Onnaghar talk ! ctrb ! ed.rev. 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreferee (talk • contribs)
Contested prod. This is about a cipher that is web-published, not published in any reliable source, not peer-reviewed. It was part of a walled garden with Imran Shaik and Definite Avalanche, both of which were deleted through PROD. The article was created by User:Iashaik; the algorithm inventor is Imran Shaik. Mangojuicetalk 15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close and redirect to Applicability Domain. — Satori Son 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong spelling, correct article is Applicability Domain Maunza 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Punkmorten 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shows no notability, shows no reference, shows nothing other than basic information KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 14:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal sources, one on criticisms and one magazinewithout ISSN, for 10 months, has been cleaned up from an advert, but no evidence of notability Nate1481( t/c) 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Delete. Although there is agreement that the topic is importance/significance to get past CSD A7, the delete reasoning of lack of reliable sources has not been rebutted and rough consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 13:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. No 3-rd party sources, etc. 18 Google hits SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“ | Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. [...] Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. | ” |
The result was Delete. Nothing to show how this article passes WP:MUSIC CitiCat ♫ 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, see WP:MUSIC --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 14:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article for an artist who does not meet the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Article was apparently created by the subject himself, and I have been unable to verify its contents with “secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.” Prod tag removed by anon, so comes here for discussion. Thank you. — Satori Son 13:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Yu-gi-oh series mentioned was deleted by AFD a while back for lack of notability, and has been recreated and deleted and salted repeatedly (Under many varient titles) since then. This article mentions other, likely similarly non-notable YouTube series, but is again mostly a YAS article. It wasn't notable on it's own, and it's not notable dressed up like this, sorry. TexasAndroid 13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 18:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable junior footballer who does not meet WP:BIO for athletes. He is an amateur who has not played at the highest level possible (yet). In terms of his future as a professional athlete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. He has not even been drafted yet, let alone signed with a professional club or played a AFL game. Mattinbgn\ talk 13:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many good sources out there. He is going to be the number-one pick in the draft. Its obvious he is going to play AFL football. Hes a keeper. Twenty Years 13:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 15:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article for an insufficiently notable software program. Subject has not received non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. I was unable to locate any reliable sources for subject using Google News or LexisNexis News searches. Even the “News Archive” of the company that produces the program contains virtually all press releases. Speedy was denied, and Prod tag removed by anon, so comes here for deletion. Thank you. — Satori Son 12:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arbitrary potentially unbounded trivia list. Every field of endeavour has a youngest participant. No objective criteria for what fields to include or exclude. Otto4711 12:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete: Very stubby duplicate of News style (to which News writing and Journalistic style already redirect). May have hard/soft lede material in it worth merging into News style, otherwise just delete it and redirect it to News style. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete the article; consensus is for merging but it remains unclear where to. That's a matter for editors to sort out. Sandstein 07:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3rd generation woodturner. Talented, but not up to WP:BIO. Deiz talk 10:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --- RockMFR 16:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page has no facts/events scheduled. Page should be recreated when an event/events need to be added. The "completion of London crossrail scheme" should be moved to some article about future rail transport events.Flaminglawyer 21:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Consensus is that the topic meets the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 13:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to satisfy the notability guideline for biographies, NPOV, tagged for notabilility since May 2007. Found only his books and a few references from websites (on an individuals homepage, two Google returns only his books and short mentions of him (such as one man's guru rating service page :) NPOV could be changed but I could find no external sources for info on him that were not very closely tied to him or his own website. Fitzhugh 06:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Non admin closure :: maelgwn - talk 07:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, orphan, "unwikified" and substantially autobiographical article. I would say this needs either aggressive and expeditious cleanup, or removal until a properly independent and sourced article comes along. Cruftbane 21:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus and rename. It is clear from the discussion that the name of the article skewed the discussion. The topic is one that is widely known and various lists on this topic have been and continue to be compiled by reliable sources. The term accused does raise BLP concerns, which may be addressed by renaming the article as List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses. -- Jreferee t/c 13:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Accused"??? Someone hasn't been reading WP:BLP. If we are going to make articles out of accusations, then we will be sued, it's just a matter of time.
The result was Speedy delete. Non-admin closure Camaron1 | Chris 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Band's page was deleted, so the album should be as well.--Hraefen Talk 02:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Non-admin closure. Camaron1 | Chris 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted, CSD A7. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 10:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a house. A not particularly notable one for that. Unverifiable, apart from the usual real estate directories. 160 ghits. MER-C 10:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A student theatre group. I used to work at the college where this group is based, a member of my family still works there, and I still live under 10km away. I have not come across this group; their fame has not spread as far as the next town. The sole source is a piece in the local paper, which reviews every event in the area from school gymkhanas up (and yes, I have also been reviewed in that paper more than once) - this does not count as substantial coverage. In short, then, this is a generic school theatre group with no evidence presented of encyclopaedic notability or non-trivial independent coverage. Cruftbane 10:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merged by User:Yngvarr. Since it's been merged we can't delete for GFDL reasons, and the redirects are useful anyway. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 10:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the recent mass Warcraft AfD, I am now nominating Ironforge for deletion. My reasons:
User:Krator (t c) 08:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus is that the article is an improper content fork of MAME -- Jreferee t/c 14:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Purely prescriptive elaboration on something which warrants a sentence or two in MAME. It's been copied to Wikibooks, where it belongs. Chris Cunningham 08:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme meant to include these two related articles, but there is no consensus to delete them, or even much of a notice that they exist. Presumably the same rationale applies. Cool Hand Luke 08:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No English references. This was a speedy, but after talking with the author, I think the AfD route is a better choice for this. Rocket000 07:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable school, only the namesake is notable Chris 07:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Will reconsider if better sourcing can be found. W.marsh 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to the subject, this autobiographical entry fails to meet important criteria for Wikipedia articles. Dr. Graczynski does not appear to be a notable subject for a biographical entry, especially since no reliable sources focus on him as a biographical subject. Absent independent sources, the article is a work of original research and, moreover, research provided by the subject himself. Deletion of this article in no way casts a shadow on Dr. Graczynski, who seems to be an successful publisher. However, even his major projects, as listed in the article, have not yet merited Wikipedia articles. Thank you for considering and commenting on this nominated deletion. HG | Talk 06:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a thinly-disguised means of promoting several websites which clearly fail to satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for web content. I'm not familiar with this type of game, however, so I'd welcome improvements to the article if there is something encyclopedic which can be said about the general concept it discusses. JavaTenor 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mr.Z-man 05:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet notability guidelines for neologisms - if it does, it hasn't attempted to verify it with soruces. Almost nonsense, but i wasn't sure. James-SugronoContributions 06:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mr.Z-man 05:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is completely unsourced and doesn't seem to be notable, and the opening section needs a verifiable source (as it is, it says every GM says that to start a session; that does not make sense to me). Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 06:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 16:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable academic per WP:PROF. Kudret abiTalk 05:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article reads like a how-to manual. And as we all know, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. I was looking at trying to edit this article so it conforms to our policies but nothing is really salvagable from what I can see. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn, no support for deletion, non admin closure. Davewild 07:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Article was transwikied to Wictionary, but has not been expanded. Article is nothing more than a dicdef. Strothra 05:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nom per article upgrades. --Strothra 19:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as copyright violation. No clean version to revert to. Author advised of policy. Moonriddengirl 19:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably non-notable place of worship. Also, this was copied verbatim from this page on the Sikhiwiki, which has an unclear (to me) GFDL status. There are several other pages copied as well, and if this qualifies for Speedy Delete those would go also. CitiCat ♫ 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Please discuss article on talk page. --VoL†ro/\/Force 23:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Yet another unremarkable criminal, listed for a single briefly notorious crime. Dybryd 04:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dybryd 04:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability claimed for a single event of very passing importance in the news. Just another guy with a rap sheet who was on the evening news for a week. Dybryd 04:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was not sanctioned by the administration of the Rizal National Science High School. I urgently demand the Wikipedia to delete this article. This article has already caused a lot of trouble in the school, with the teachers and students. Please, to anyone who wishes that this article be sustained, please think again. The trouble this article had brought did not just damage the school name but damaged the whole of the Rizal National Science High School Community, the names of the people who were included in the past articles. I made this page and I ought to be responsible for this mess the editing of the article brought, so now I want the article be removed and deleted completely. Rob alfie9 04:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep/merge. Whether a merge is supported isn't really clear, but merging doesn't require an AFD. W.marsh 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional band in Harry Potter series. Sole claim to outside notability was a publicity-seeking lawsuit by real band with a similar name. Band is uninteresting even within universe. Information on the page can be placed on various other Harry Potter pages. SolidPlaid 03:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted A7 - no assertion of notability. the_undertow talk 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about some event in some game that only some people care about. Prod removed by author. JuJube 03:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another sex offender I'm nominating for deletion over notability concerns. Of the group I've nominating tonight, Lafave has by far the best claim to notability. I have heard her name outside Wikipedia (unlike my other nominations), her beauty kept her face on TV for some time, she has been parodied in South Park (although the episode isn't solely about her and I don't think it names her - the story combines a number of scandals then current). I even had the vague feeling that there might have been a TV movie about her, but I checked and there wasn't. So again, she is notable only for a single not-especially-unusual crime, and I don't think getting your face in the tabloids for a week or so is really notability in an encyclopedic sense.
One last note: this group of nominations is all of women. That's just because I had a list of women! What got me thinking about it was a vote to delete the article of a man charged with a similar crime. I don't have a point to make about gender, just one about the fleeting nature of tabloid fame! Dybryd 04:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. WP:BLP1E issues, though raised, do not form a compelling argument for deletion, since WP:BLP1E is intended primarily to avoid unjustified harmful publicity being focused upon people through little or no fault of their own. For example, the sort of articles whose deletions were disputed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff might qualify for deletion under WP:BLP1E. However, persons who stand convicted of serious felonies, like Sarah Jayne Vercoe [47], have no one but themselves to blame for their own infamy. John254 02:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating a group of long-standing, well-sourced articles about notorious sex offenders for deletion. The reason is notability - I just don't think these folks are all that notorious anymore. They are scandalous news stories that got a lot of attention at the time but have by and large faded from public memory, except here. They are marginal cases - all get lots of google hits, and consensus may go either way. It's possible that were they deleted, true-crime fans or age-of-consent advocates would rapidly recreate them. But my view is that these articles just don't add a lot of informational value to the encyclopedia. Curious to see which way consensus will go.
By the way, I'm getting these names by going through a list often posted by I-know-not-who as a "See Also" list on articles regarding gender politics, sex abuse, and other related topics (for example, here). I've often noticed this list and sometimes deleted it from articles, but I have no particular point to make against the guy who posts it, I just remembered it tonight when another AfD made me think of the tendency of forgotten scandals to remain immortalized in Wikipedia articles. If anyone knows who the list's promoter is (I think he uses an IP range) please notify him. Dybryd 03:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for deletion over notability concerns, only discover by clicking the link in the afd template that it had been nominated before in 2005 with a result of DELETE. That discussion is below. But the article either wasn't deleted or was recreated. I think the subject is non-notable, and it ought to be deleted again! Dybryd 03:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. John254 02:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating a group of long-standing, well-sourced articles about notorious sex offenders for deletion. The reason is notability - I just don't think these folks are all that notorious anymore. They are scandalous news stories that got a lot of attention at the time but have by and large faded from public memory, except here. They are marginal cases - all get lots of google hits, and consensus may go either way. It's possible that were they deleted, true-crime fans or age-of-consent advocates would rapidly recreate them. But my view is that these articles just don't add a lot of informational value to the encyclopedia. Curious to see which way consensus will go. Dybryd 03:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. John254 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating a group of long-standing, well-sourced articles about notorious sex offenders for deletion. The reason is notability - I just don't think these folks are all that notorious anymore. They are scandalous news stories that got a lot of attention at the time but have by and large faded from public memory, except here. They are marginal cases - all get lots of google hits, and consensus may go either way. It's possible that were they deleted, true-crime fans or age-of-consent advocates would rapidly recreate them. But my view is that these articles just don't add a lot of informational value to the encyclopedia. Curious to see which way consensus will go. Dybryd 03:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Halo (film). CitiCat ♫ 03:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little context but what there is seems to point to a planned (or rumored?) film, unsourced as usual, WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 03:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 18:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be the "equator" dividing Germans who eat "white sausage" from those who do not. Unreferenced, unencyclopedic, and nonsensical. Outside Wikipedia, only 911 Google hits [48] . Fails WP:V , WP:N and WP:NEO. Edison 03:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WjBscribe 19:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in violation of WP:V and WP:OR. The article is ranking airlines in order from largest, yet there is no sources cited which verify that this ranking is in fact correct, failing WP:V. It appears that editors have simply worked off a list of airlines and compiled their own lists, which of course is in violation of WP:OR. An example showing that this is the case is that S7 Airlines is missing, an airilne which [carried 4.9 million pax in 2006]. Totally WP:OR. Rankings need to be attributed to WP:V sources, not as a result of WP:OR. Russavia 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:OR Chris! ct 02:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:OR Chris! ct 02:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:OR Chris! ct 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:OR Chris! ct 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:OR Chris! ct 02:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:OR Chris! ct 02:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Per WP:HEY. -- Jreferee t/c 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional city, an article that combines stuff from all kinds of fictional universes as if they had anything to do with each other, its also crufty and unreferenced, there is nothing here in my opinion that stands up on its own Cloveious 02:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WjBscribe 19:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in violation of WP:V and WP:OR. The article is ranking airlines in order from largest, yet there is no sources cited which verify that this ranking is in fact correct, failing WP:V. It appears that editors have simply worked off a list of airlines and compiled their own lists, which of course is in violation of WP:OR. An example showing that this is the case is that Air Astana is missing (an airline which carried 1.4 mill pax in 2006). Or that Air Asia is listed twice, as a group and as an airline. Totally WP:OR. Russavia 02:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WjBscribe 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in violation of WP:V and WP:OR. The article is ranking airlines in order from largest, yet there is no sources cited which verify that this ranking is in fact correct, failing WP:V. It appears that editors have simply worked off a list of airlines and compiled their own lists, which of course is in violation of WP:OR. Russavia 02:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete--JForget 22:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not verifiable. Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! Let's go Lightning! 02:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete because it is snowing. the_undertow talk 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if this would qualify for speedy. I don't think I need to really expand on why I nominated this page. It is a useless list. Rjd0060 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 15:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing this under Fiction and the Arts because I don't see a history category, and I suppose it could be part of the arts. This article is part of a subtle hoax. Someone has seized upon a feature of ancient Egyptian sculpture and invented a history and interpretation of it, which an editor then put on Wikipedia. I carefully checked the references, they fall into three categories. The first is a reference to the Cleveland museum of art, which makes no reference to "rods" but only to a piece of folded cloth in the statue's hand. The second source used is the Neilos site. This is a commercial site, and a commercial link to it was added near the end of the reflist. The third source is a reference to a book and other materials by Valery Uvarov.
I checked out this book by the link provided, and it has no scholarly information and seems to be part of a hoax. The Neilos site links to Uvarov's book as well. Looking carefully at the Neilos site and Uvarov's article on page 3, you can see the pictures of the Menkaure statue are the same, and the wands for sale on the Neilos site are the same as on page 6 on the Uvarov article. The editor who started the wikipedia page has a history of adding questionable material to other articles, and though this is "sourced," the "rods of ancient Egypt" is not a legitimate topic. Jeff Dahl 01:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not ver yfamiliar with deletion rules, but is this necessarily a hoax? Might it not just be poorly referenced, etc? The user has a history of edits, how likely is it to be a 2 year old hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.198.148 (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 - blatant advertising that would require a total rewrite. Pedro : Chat 13:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, promotional Peter Rehse 01:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect as a plausible search term. W.marsh 20:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced orphan with no assertion of notability. A few hits turn up on Google, but nothing meeting WP:SOURCE requirements. Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a vanity article. Probably created with a conflict of interest. If not a vanity article, then a copyvio, and possibly infringement on proprietary information rights. No assertion of notability. No references, and thus, zero-verifiability. James-SugronoContributions 00:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional city from a computer game series; pure game guide material with no assertion of encyclopedic significance. Stormie 07:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 00:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources for anything on these pages. At all. Will (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. These pages are relatively useless at the moment, but will definitely be filled out once the episodes air. Deleting them now would be pointless, because they would just have to be reinstated when the episodes air, which is only several weeks away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.203.169 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were all given to us by a Greg Colton, one of the main directors for family guy. Same was done with season 5 and all those titles were correct as well if you went back and checked. In that case they were available about a year in advance as well Grande13 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ultra-strong mega-keep deleting wud be pointless, the episodes will air soon & these pages show a bit of good info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.235.20 (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, too much of crystalballery Will (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all have official sources, and plus are already part of an ongoing discussing if you had cared to check... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande13 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding back info from remaining third season episodes that comes from the copyright database as its an acceptable form for source material as was discussed in the past and agreed upon. Numerous articles, some featured, or close to featured, for a show that utilizes the copyright database as a reference use this as well. Main example, the Simpsons [59], check on one of the discussion pages for the lengthy conversation between some of their editors and a few admins for how this came to be an acceptable source if you have any qualms about it.
Also, if you would have done some more research you would have noticed that more than half of the previously aired episodes on the copyright database have the word screenplay, which is just the style that american dad seems to be registering some of their more recent episodes. There hasn't been a situation where a title has been mislabeled yet, and in the rare occurrence if some situation should ever arise there is a upcoming television show disclaimer located above the current season.
The result was no consensus to delete. Merger is an editorial decision W.marsh 00:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless shopping mall article. Has previously been deleted. Pathless 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Merger to Shopping in Letterkenny is an editorial decision W.marsh 00:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless shopping mall article, has already been deleted. Pathless 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object; it is certainly a very poor article but the notion that shopping malls are not-notable (or more likely unworthy) for inclusion is 24 carat POV. They are central to modern life in the English speaking world, just as Churches were one time. It was commerce that created towns in the first place; their very reason to exist! What this article needs is to be improved, not deleted. Commercial advertising in such articles can be handled just as it is in other articles. (Sarah777 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
Comment:
"Please stop trying to speedy delete tag notable malls. You will not succeed in subverting a consensus discussion, as any such taggings will be rollbacked on sight, and watchlisted so they can't be snuck through at a later date." - Rebecca 06:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another barrel-scraping shopping mall advertisement Pathless 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object; it is certainly a very poor article but the notion that shopping malls are not-notable (or more likely unworthy) for inclusion is 24 carat POV. They are central to modern life in the English speaking world, just as Churches were one time. It was commerce that created towns in the first place; their very reason to exist! What this article needs is to be improved, not deleted. Commercial advertising in such articles can be handled just as it is in other articles. (Sarah777 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah777 (talk • contribs)
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for nn corp Pathless 22:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object; as before - it is certainly a very poor article but the notion that shopping malls are not-notable (or more likely unworthy) for inclusion is 24 carat POV. They are central to modern life in the English speaking world, just as Churches were one time. It was commerce that created towns in the first place; their very reason to exist! What this article needs is to be improved, not deleted. Commercial advertising in such articles can be handled just as it is in other articles. (Sarah777 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah777 (talk • contribs)
Comment:
"Please stop trying to speedy delete tag notable malls. You will not succeed in subverting a consensus discussion, as any such taggings will be rollbacked on sight, and watchlisted so they can't be snuck through at a later date." - Rebecca 06:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)