The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found evidence that James Snodgrass has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of him, hence I believe the article does not met WP:BIO. Plus, I do not feel it passes WP:ACADEMIC either. Allventon (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. The concerns about sourcing are real, but even when properly weighted I don't see a consensus to delete. WP:N is guideline which must be applied "with common sense and the occasional exception," and I can see no consensus below to apply it strictly. Further discussion might result in a clear consensus but I feel that that is most likely after sufficient time has been given to see if more sources emerge, or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable local bar. DRV allowed new version to stand for new review, but still completely unnotable. The ring dunking section is overly inflated, and an A&M tradition that can occur anywhere, it isn't unique to this bar. Tradition itself is already covered elsewhere. This bar itself has not had significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Out of the 19 sources in the article, 10 are all local papers: the local newspaper, a local TV channel, and the university newspaper. Of the remaining sources, 2-4 are directory type works that mention the bar in passing as part of promo-type blurbs for A&M university. Five is another trivial passing of someone's blog-type report of their trip through A&M. The Playboy "award" alone does not establish any actual notability, nor does Bush's minor mention in passing. 8 is another trivial mention. 10 is a piece by a guy from College Station talking about his pending return trip there. 15 is another directory listing, and again mentions the bar in passing.
Entire article is full of nothing but local trivia, with no actual claim of notability for the bar beyond what it iself claims and the minor Playboy award. Was deleted in an [that concluded on 28 January 2009], and immediately recreated by an editor who works extensively with A&M articles. The recreation was allowed to stay in a DRV despite deletion being endorse, without prejudice to be renominated again. Again, this bar completely fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Local sources are not "reliable, independent secondary sources", directory listings are not significant coverage, nor are passing mentions are not significant coverage. Per the company notability guidelines: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." This has not been established here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple sources have shown the Dixie Chicken to be notable. While there is not a featured New York Times article on the Dixie Chicken, this does not take away from this establishment's notability. Clearly, due to multiple reliable sources and clearly stated notability, this article should be kept. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just an ordinary little store in a small village. Nothing notable about it. Student7 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable local newspaper, which is actually named The Bryan College Station Eagle. Fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong keep Notable Texas newspaper. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. The newspaper's circulation is very low, and it has won no awards. I don't think this meets the Notability criteria. Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising. The only assertion of notability is that the company is "the largest provider of technical support content for internal IT departments" however I can't find anything that bears this out. pablohablo. 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Notability seems established and the article can be rewritten to address concerns about its focus. Canley (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not notable and has had a notability warning tag since January. Stub contains a single sentence and does not provide information about the actual movement other than the very basic top layer of it. Article has no backlinks (other than a bot's log archive) and has a single source.
Article does not recite why it is notable nor why the reason for the movement was notable.
A number of users joining a Facebook group can hardly be considered a reason for notability as users joining a Facebook group don't necessarily support the group's ideals. Alpha 4615 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A difficult one. on the one hand, some serious effort has been put into this page, and it's a shame to see it go. On the other hand, this page is not really appropriate for what is, after all, an encyclopedia. This isn't the first time this type of discussion has taken place (although I think it's the first time the article in question has been so polished), I think this deletion review sums it up best. See also here and the other discussions it links to. There's been a pretty clear consensus over the years that these articles should not be included. I don't think we need a redirect, as it's a rather improbable search term. yandman 09:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Largely game guide content with little sourcing other than from fansites and irrelevant mythological research, the latter of which is wholly irrelevant to the context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers, numbers, numbers. Consensus is worthless if it's centred around ideas that violate policies, the wider consensus. Despite my repetitive replies to several people's posts above, no-one except you has truly partaken in this discussion on the keep side of things, so I'm assuming they have no deeper points to assert than "not really written in a game guide context".
Point is, the article is devoid of reliable sources, you and others have failed to show how policies support this article, therefore the article is deleted. That's Wikipedia. The end. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted from portuguese wikipedia per AfD. pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Poder Paralelo (10 delete x 1 keep, 9 of the ones who vote for delete are brazilians). The basic reason is WP:CRYSTAL. Descíclope (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the article suggests that the band is in any way notable. It is also completely free of sources. faithless (speak) 22:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Wikipedia:Speedy keep Nominator has withdrawn. All keeps. SilkTork *YES! 14:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of subject is unclear to me. Also, much of the text appears to be a copyright violation, but main contributor claims source is public domain. HeirloomGardener (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you've made your point. Glad to know you never make mistakes. Can someone close this before I get attacked again? HeirloomGardener (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Obvious Keep Lots of news sources. Tractops (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable event. No hits on Google news archives. The only hits on Google are the group's own website or related blogs and youtube channels. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO. No real hits on Google save occasional forum name. • \ / (⁂) 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. And discuss a potential redirect at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did prod this originally but it was removed. A few issues come to mind really, firstly and most obviously BLP1E. Secondly, further expansion of the article (if remotely possible) would involve including personal details of the subject (a minor). Thirdly, the article content is already viewable on another article . Thanks. — R2 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect - What they said ^^ - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to United States presidential election, 2012. MBisanz talk 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content fork of United States presidential election, 2012, all information on this page is available on that one. I also take issue with the title and its implication that most third parties will be holding primaries (several parties' nominees are decided solely by convention, and the numerous independent candidates on here aren't subject to any nominating procedure). Should be redirected to the election page for now, and recreated as Third party (United States) presidential candidates, 2012 much closer to the date of the election. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content fork of United States presidential election, 2012; all the information on this page is also available on that page. Should be redirected there for the next two years or so, then recreated when more information on the primaries and candidates becomes available. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the following searches:
there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, therefore the band doesn't comply with the notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown group of artists with no reputation or noticeable success. Basically an advertisment, written by some member itself. Also nominated for deletion in Wikipedia DE. --Niabot (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - subject is notable, even if the article itself is in a very poor state, so please expand it and use the corresponding talkpage to discuss possible improvements. --Angelo (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pointless to me... Tarheel95 Talk T-H (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy for this was declined. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, and looking as previous AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Lounge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Airline Services, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Airline Cabins, this is no different. Issues this advertarticle has include is the IFE really that notable? There is nothing asserted in the article which gives it notability. The article is totally unsourced, so it does not comply with our verifiability policy, and is already covered at Emirates_Airline#ICE, basically making this an advert fork. Looking at it again, I am somewhat inclined to contact the admin who declined and raise it with them, but it's easier to bring it here and hope that Emirates fabulous peanuts isn't the next advertarticle created. Russavia Dialogue 18:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed as moot. Page has been redirected to Nephilim as a spelling variation, and as a redirect AfD lacks continuing jurisdiction. I can't spell it the same way twice myself, and I like the band. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created by an editor recently given an indef block for OR, this seems to be an almost unique spelling for Nephilim - I guess it could be kept as a redirect in case someone mistypes, but then we'd probably want to create Nefilim as well. The lead even spells the name a different way! Neither Google Scholar nor Google books seems to have this as a relevant spelling. dougweller (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources (I have looked) to establish notability, simply being mentioned in a Mike Myers movie is not enough. kelapstick (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Punch Buggy" got by with a lot less than what I have put forth here. That was mentioned in The Simpsons, so that's acceptable for wikipedia? This is a real game, no different than Beer Pong, Punch Buggy, paper football, etc. Not sure what is needed to prove that. "Games made up in one day"? Find me a game that wasn't invented in one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munch606 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and CSD G3. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP position in a WP:MADEUP country. If bits of the USA had decided to go off and do their own thing we would have heard about it Ironholds (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Failed CSD even though article did not back up its assertions of notability. This person is non-notable and the article lacks references outside of a single website. -- smurdah[citation needed] 17:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article may not include reference for it notability a simple google search shows several published books Gnevin (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry if I did not get everything right on the first round -- but I have little doubt that WVH should be on Wikipedia. Thanks, ZsV --ZsVarhelyi (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album of non-notable band (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odious Mortem)... Searching for this album brings up only 3 mere mentions... fails WP:NALBUMS... Adolphus (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO -- smurdah[citation needed] 16:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. NAC. JulesH (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP (non-admin closure). Per calling and observance of WP:SNOW. Alpha 4615 (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been tagged requesting verification for over a year and has not been done. Thus finding reliable sources to verify the information has failed. Pinkkeith (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW applies. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MADEUP; a fake position leading an organisation that doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure if "regions declared their social secession from the United States" there would be something on the news Ironholds (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Clearly there is consensus to write about the incident, although it does appear that "hoax" may not be perfectly applicable to this situation. Move/rename discussions should occur outside of AfD as consensus for that came later in the discussion, and hasn't been shown. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a college athlete who is otherwise not notable except as a member of a particular team Student7 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A minor film executive--and 'executive' may be stretching things--with much name-dropping and little suggested notability, nor sources testifying to same, apparently self-created (by Casparvw (talk · contribs). A prod tag was added, but was removed by the article creator, with the only changes being the removal of the list of celebrities the subject has 'worked with' and the addition of a press release and a SEC form. CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable club. Speedy declined by anonymous IP. PROD removed by article's author. So here we are at AfD. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This one lacks notability unlike that other article involving a whale you nominated for deletion. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research Rtphokie (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to captive orcas. MBisanz talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to be original research. Rtphokie (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to captive orcas. MBisanz talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Tagged for over a year with reference concerns Rtphokie (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Google says its a slim to moderate hint of notibility but it does lack 3rd party sources. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Derry. MBisanz talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lacks notability, essentially an article on this WP:ONEEVENT Rtphokie (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this game is re-invented every day worldwide. But what of this article? Re-write in a sensible tone? Or delete because there is no professional trashball circuit? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. He is an entertainment journalist with no claim to have a public profile. The only references given are examples of articles that he has written, not articles about him. It has the look of an article written by the subject in the hope of building his profile. Le poulet noir (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did not manage to find any significant coverage of the subject. Offline sources given in the article only seems to consist of passing mentions. --aktsu (t / c) 11:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did not manage to find any significant coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. --aktsu (t / c) 11:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a collection of book reviews/essays regarding books about Abraham Lincoln. It's completely unencyclopedic. Violation of Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought plus some other guidelines. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A reference has not been found, after more than a year, for the article's basic premise. Aseld talk 10:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore: What the Manual of Style says should be the case is a far cry from what is the case here. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is a house style guideline. It's not a definition of how to interpret every article, especially poor ones.
You've identified a problem with the introduction: it contains original research, namely an original analysis of a story in Norse mythology. Please stop acting so helpless. AFD is not a crutch. The introduction is not immutable, and can be edited, by you, as much as any other part of the article. You could even fix the title, with your rename button, to lowercase the second word. You are not helpless. You have an edit button. Use it! Remove the three sentences from the article and write a better introduction. You could have done that in, now, four fewer edits than you've currently made.
When you see a problem, fix it! See the sign on the door when you arrived here at Wikipedia? It said "Be bold!". Be bold! And stop frittering about with deletion nominations and clearly fallacious wikilawyering over what the Manual of Style says, and edit the three sentences out of the article. Uncle G (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
person is not notable enough to have page Gwangqq (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-The journal article appears to reference subject's opinion on food served at Chinese venues. This can hardly be considered the accolades of a playwright/actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phostorm (talk • contribs) 09:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is Elyse (I found this article while googling for a picture that a journalist had posted) and wow, no, I didn't write the article and I'm not sure why you think that I had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheekythemonkey (talk • contribs) 10:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the author of the page say she didn't create a page about herself, if the Wikipedia folk say she is the creator. How strange...and retarded. If everyone wanted to make a page for themselves, what would the world come to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.243.119.30 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Gwangqq, who put this up for deletion, only did so after thoroughly vandalising it. Edits to Elyse Ribbons are this user's sole contributions to Wikipedia. Phostorm also vandalized the Elyse Ribbons article, and those form the majority of that user's Wikipedia edits. I pointed out the similarity of the page to user:lajex, but if that's just someone pretending to be Elyse Ribbons, then I don't see any reason to delete this article. Zhwj (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod. A very long biography. The subject is a involved with TV production but I can't see the notabilityPorturology (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Hoaxes are vandalism. Lycopersicon syndrome is a relatively rare condition in which the smell of certain plants in the tomato Solanum lycopersicum family can trigger the a-systene-adreline gland in pregnant women to secrete an enzyme that results in children being born with two different color eyes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested (deleted actually) CSD; WP:HOAX at best. §FreeRangeFrog 09:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism; no tertiary sources given or found for term. Possible WP:HOAX. §FreeRangeFrog 08:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, seems to fail WP:ORG. Possible WP:CSD#G4, as article was previously deleted in AfD. Guy0307 (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax to provide background info for a Life on Mars episode. I am also nominating the following related page because it is a duplicate:
—pfahlstrom (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wkikpedia has some fictional bios on it, but this guy was only on one episode, hardly enough to have page. 72.220.175.219 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the inclussion of this article but rather the amount of space given to the fictional bio. Something along these line might be more appropriate: Sebastian Grace is a fictional 1970's, one hit, glam rock artist featured in one episode of the ABC drama, Life on Mars, which first aired in February of 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsuis1 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides referencing issues, I'm not sure what the notability of this "number" is supposed to be. This doesn't meet WP:NUMBER IMHO. Prod was removed by article's primary editor. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. nom made by banned user using sock Ronhjones (Talk) 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability outside the Manhattan Samurai/BillDeanCarter initiative. Written by a known sock puppeteer. No independent, reliable sources asserting notability have been provided. Delete promptly. Issue 12 exists (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Copyvio StarM 04:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article on the Cherrybrook Rural Fire Brigade for deletion because there are no reliable, published sources (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) that can be used to verify the content of this article (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and demonstrate that the subject of the article meets either the general notability inclusion guideline (Wikipedia:Notability) or the more specific notability inclusion guidelines for organisations (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)).
I also observe that no serious content contributions have been made to the article since November 2006, the only edits since then have been grammar tweaks or cleanup tagging, and that the current content would be better suited for the organisation's own website[9] (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not your web host), but understand that these in themselves are secondary to the issue of lack of verification.
On searching Google News for possible articles (i.e. this search for [Cherrybrook fire -canton (because results are being picked up for a volunteer fire fighting unit on Cherry Brook Road in North Canton, Ohio, which is a long way from Cherrybrook, New South Wales), I have found that most of the articles referring to the unit are behind paywalls. All of these articles are from local level newspapers, and most of these appear to be passing mentions (either loosely connecting the unit to a fire or other event... "A fire truck from Cherrybrook attended the scene.", or loosely connecting the subject of an article to the unit as part of a 'local citizen of the week'-type piece) or notification of events (such as open days, fundraising activities, etc). The National Library of Australia has records for a history book, but according to the bibliograhic data given, this book is self-published by the unit and as such is not a reliable source.
I mean no disrespect to the people of this organisation: some of my relatives are volunteer firefighters, and I know the valuable work they do. I am also not contesting the notability or verifiability of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. However, I believe that this article does not meet Wikipedia policy and as such should be deleted. -- saberwyn 06:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Elem Pomo. MBisanz talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking a laguage does not make you notable, especially when there isn't even a page for the language you speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
original research Wuhwuzdat (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to The Most Beautiful Girl in the World -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non encyclopedic essay, original research, vanity article, author removed ProD Wuhwuzdat (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The characterization of these (selective) technologies as "disruptive" is not support by the citations, and is WP:OR & WP:POV. (Besides the printing press was pretty disruptive in its day....so was the telephone...so was...) ZimZalaBim talk 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Student activities and traditions at UC Irvine. I'll redirect in a week. yandman 10:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable organization, since it doesn't meet the notability standard for inclusion: no independent reliable sources. AndTheElectricMayhem (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod that doesn't fall into any CSD and thus this bit of bureaucracy seems required. No claim to notability. Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but a definition of a term used in medicine/public health. Does not seem that the article can grow beyond this - growth would happen in articles about obstetrics, childbirth or similar, not under this title. FreplySpang 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Rewritten article looks good, so I've stricken my nomination. FreplySpang 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested by a third party. Computer virus. The article does not mention anything about it that is special when compared to the dozens or so that are discovered each day. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted G12 (non admin close). Umbralcorax (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested with the rationale, This article attempt to correct the misconception about ancient oriental zodiac system (sic). Problem is, there are no sources, and no indication that it is anything other than original research. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article's author removed a Prod tag and a subsequent Speedy Delete tag was also removed. The subject of the article does not appear to pass WP:RS or WP:WEB standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. faithless (speak) 04:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP, WP:N, and, partially, WP:SPAM -Zeus-uc 02:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Made-up sport. Very few Google hits, no reliable third-party references. The only ref in the article is a blog that's a copy of the Wikipedia article. Graymornings(talk) 02:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism for Facebook messaging. The sources in the article don't mention the term itself. I'd redirect, but this doesn't seem to be a likely search term - I couldn't find even one instance of this word being used on the internet as a term for Facebook messaging. There's a Facebook application called "fmail," but it's a completely different thing. Graymornings(talk) 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Editor who removed the prod did so to this and many other articles with the reason that "could be notable" with no evidence that it actually is. Anyways on to my reasoning, this is a local youth league which does not meet notability requirements and such leagues have many times before been shown to not be notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. Djsasso (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor league hockey player fails WP:BIO#Athletes. JaGatalk 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band: having searched I can turn up no reliable sources; film for which band recorded music is not itself notable. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was bold redirect by author to Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 07:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even more complete and total fancruft. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Close as the sole author has since redirected the page to Digimon World 3#Vemmon. Nifboy (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fancruft, with unreliable references. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. distrocruft. Doesn't claim to be notable. No references show that it is notable. Nothing shows that any significant number of people use it. It does nothing particularly special that makes it unique. It doesn't take much to make a Linux distro and put it on a website and make some forum posts about it. This article has been tagged for cleanup for almost a year with nothing to show for it. Miami33139 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Carl Wickman. MBisanz talk 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary: 100% dicdef. The list of "*graphy" words would correspond to wikt:Category:English words suffixed with -graphy - 7-bubёn >t 01:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Community website for people involved in mental health treatment. Stuff full of links to their website but no evidence that it is notable even within Alaska. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Air Bud. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the soap All By Myself doesn't seem to exist Plenty afoot (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Album track in limited markets only. Paul75 (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable golf course with no obvious historic link to the sport. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable revue that played in a Chicago theater in 2006. A Google search turns up nothing to support notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable union organizer whose activities were mostly limited to a small Connecticut city. A Google search brings up nothing to support notability. Does not meet WP:BIO and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, and only claim to fame is amateur competition. Does not pass WP:ATHLETE. --aktsu (t / c) 10:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No fighter has any business listing the following: 1) criminal records, legal dealings or troubles of other people as a means to excuse poor training, lack of training, reason for losing, etc. and 2) listing the time and round and execution (i.e. left uppercut) of how the fighter defeated an opponent, but leaving out the opponent's name and venue of the fight. This is all unverifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.71.194 (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any sources. --aktsu (t / c) 10:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found no sources to confirm what's in the article. It says he participated at Mass Destruction 12, but Sherdog's record of the event shows no mention of him. --aktsu (t / c) 10:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced and found no relevant sources. --aktsu (t / c) 09:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick search turned up nothing on this guy. Possibly a hoax? --aktsu (t / c) 09:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL, forthcoming albums do not get their own articles until an actual title and full track listing have been officially announced by the artist or their record label. This was previously prodded for the same reason, but the prod notice was removed by an anon IP with no edit summary to explain their rationale. Delete until a properly-sourced article about this album, at a real title and including a confirmed track listing, can be written. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to satisfy notability criteria for entertainers Jvr725 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On notability watch since October 2008. The magazine web site has not been updated since the end of 2006 and the last edition of the magazine seems to be from late 2004. The page states that the magazine was to be re-established in April 2008 but there is no independent evidence that this occurred. In brief a short lived regional magazine with limited independent evidence of widespread circulation.Porturology (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability and unreferenced Orrelly Man (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, unable to establish notability Oo7565 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLP. No indication that this person meets WP:MUSICBIO. No clear target band for a redirect. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet wp:bio, references are either not reliable sources (note that Bleacher Report is "fan-driven journalism"), or contain significant coverage. Does not meet wp:athlete, hasn't even played in college yet, which wouldn't meet wp:athlete anyhow. Also has obvious crystal ball issues Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandy World Championship 2007 squad lists, the grouping of groupings of people isn't notable in itself. Also WP:LISTCRUFT items 2,4 and 10 Benefix (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod, I tagged it as a Neologism. ViperSnake151 01:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Censorship in Thailand. MBisanz talk 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stub article about a professor in Thailand who is allegedly a victim of poor human rights laws; while it's referenced, it seems to be a clear example of WP:BLP1E. His status as an assistant professor means that he's not notable simply for his academic position. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turning to the article under discussion, it is not true that the sources are about him. Your description of the controversy itself belies your own conclusion that "there is quite enough on him" and that "there is no larger subject." Of course there is a larger subject here--it is the very subject you describe and refer to repeatedly in your comment as "the controversy" and the "prolonged situation and dispute." Unfortunately, no one's given a name to the controversy, and it naturally seems odd to you to give the article a title that's not an actual name. Nevertheless, the sources cover the controversy, not the man, so the Wikipedia article should cover the controversy, not the man. Likewise, your suggestion that he is not a "low-profile individual" is unsubstantiated and belied by the lack of sources about him. His refusal to cooperate with the authorities was not a self-promoting decision, and indeed, it didn't promote him, it engendered the controversy that is the actual subject of the cited sources. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None notible athlete, fails WP:BIO. Page is just for advertsing. Also important to note, this edit, original prod tag was removed by IP user, who didn't want the page deleted. Crash Underride 18:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works and has not won a major award. Delete for failing WP:WEB. Peephole (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable product. respectable website, but not many relevant google hits. -Zeus- [t|c] 20:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, doesn't claim to be notable. No major edits in more than 18 months, orphaned except for template transclusions. contested PROD. Miami33139 (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus - default to delete. The discussion came to no particular consensus on this subject, with appeals by participants to both our various policies on the biographies of living persons and our guidelines on inclusion. Many of the participants saying that the individual was notable did not assert why, or indirectly supported the notion that the event and not the person should be covered, to the point of proposing a rename of the article. Other participants supported deletion on the grounds that notability, while existent, was marginal and believed the need to protect the subject of the article was more significant.
As such, this is a classic no consensus close, meaning no consensus to keep or to delete. There is sufficient precedent at AfD to suggest that a discussion on a biography of a living person may default to delete in the case of no consensus, and based on the discussion below this is the course that I have opted for. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete. WP:BLP1E, combined with the fact that the subject of the article does not appear to want the article in Wikipedia. He's occasionally quoted in the media as an expert on white-collar experience in prison. Eight Google News hits for "Fred Shapiro" and "fraud" (don't confuse with Fred R. Shapiro, the Yale Law librarian when searching). THF (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web/browsergame. No evidence in the article of the topic having received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Delete for failing WP:NOTE. Article was deleted once already for this reason. I searched Google and found nothing useful. Peephole (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is fleeting and limited. Falls under WP:ONEEVENT. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entry should also cover a short biography, including milestones from his work in the US and abroad. His actions during "Wife Swap" episode does not completely characterize the person. His wife and her work should also be considered as a link. I believe his actions are very noteworthy in terms of people who compartmentalize their thinking about social good. An expanded entry can serve to advance discussion about education, military service, environmentalism, verbal abuse, elitist behavior, nutrition and many other topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.35 (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Film by unknown directors, unknown production company. "Vintage Studio Productions" gets very few Google hits, none of them notable. No news hits, no notable actors, no third-party sources, nothing. Graymornings(talk) 00:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:02, 17 February 2009 (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)) . |
The above-captioned article was created and, most importantly, deleted numerous times on a number of wikis (e.g. fr it, sv, de, pt) some time last year (non-notable). It also was the subject of massive sockpuppetry and spamming, particularly on :fr (see fr:Wikipedia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Mmbmmmbm for a detailed list and background story).
The article was lately re-pushed by Luoguozhang, who pretended to be editing from China. Well, a CU showed that it is not really the case, and the user was banned (again) both here and on fr. Then there was the off-wiki legal threat yesterday against the French admin who dealt with the AfD request. If this article gets deleted, I think it would help everyone that re-creation be blocked for the foreseeable future (this has been going on for a year now).
There has also been a submission to Planet maths with one of the references being... Wikipedia. The matter was reported to project maths but after initial acknowlegement that there were some papers out there the discussion forked into the massive sockpuppettry issue. Thus, I'm putting this back onto the AfD track.
This is not about the reality of these polynomials (which exist by the truckload) but rather the aggressive self-promotion of otherwise non-noted, non particularly notable work. Oops forgot to sign, thx A.R.Popo le Chien throw a bone 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manually fixed nomination about 15 minutes ago. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr JackSmith, as you are the single voter to clearly honestly and independently take position: (10 independent, peer reviewed articles, published in reliable, scholarly journals without the likelihood of fraud are clearly sufficient to establish notability of a mathematical concept) , and in refernce to your own confirmation : we give you the scoop of th 30 and not 10 independent, peer reviewed articles -take your time to verify each one , one by one...!!!<ad by your honour...none dare lying to you...>
1. " ENHANCEMENT OF PYROLYSIS SPRAY PERFORMANCE USING THERMAL TIME-RESPONSE TO PRECURSOR UNIFORM DEPOSITION ", European Physical Journal-Applied Physics, EPJAP , Vol. 37 pp.105-109 (2007).
2. " A CONTINUOUS SOLUTION TO HEAT EQUATION USING COMBINED DIRICHLET-NEWMAN BOUNDARY CONDITIONS - CASE OF SPRAY PYROLYSIS TECHNIQUE DEPOSITED NON-UNIFORM LAYER ", Journal of Energy heat and Mass transfer, Vol. 29(1) pp. 13-25 (2007).
3. " A STURM-LIOUVILLE SHAPED CHARACTERISTIC DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION AS A GUIDE TO ESTAB-LISH A QUASI-POLYNOMIAL EXPRESSION TO THE BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Journal of Differential Equations and C.P. Vol. 2, pp. 117-133 (2007).
4. " ON MODIFIED BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS: SOME DIFFERENTIAL AND ANALYTICAL PROPERTIES OF THE NEW POLYNOMIALS ISSUED FROM AN ATTEMPT FOR SOLVING BI-VARIED HEAT EQUATION ", Journal of Trends in Applied Science Research, Vol. 2(6) pp. 540-544 (2007).
5. " THE BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS, A NEW FUNCTION CLASS FOR SOLVING BI-VARIED SECOND ORDER DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS ", F. E. Journal of Applied Mathematics, Vol.31(3) pp. 299 - 320 (2008).
6. " ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ORDINARY GENERATING FUNCTION AND A CHRISTOFFEL-DARBOUX TYPE FIRST-ORDER DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE HEAT EQUATION RELATED BOUBAKER-TURKI POLYNOMIALS ", Journal of Differential Equations and C.P. Vol. 1 pp. 51-66 (2008).
7. “ A SOLUTION TO BLOCH NMR FLOW EQUATIONS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF HOMODYNAMIC FUNCTIONS OF BLOOD FLOW SYSTEM USING M-BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", International Journal of Current Applied Physics, Vol. 9 (1), pp. 278-283 (2009).
8. " HEAT TRANSFER SRAY MODEL: AN IMPROVED THERMAL – TIME RESPONSE TO UNIFORM LAYER DEPOSIT USING BESSEL AND BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", International Journal of Current Applied Physics, Volume 9, Issue 3, May 2009, Pages 622-624
9. " AN ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE HEAT TRANSFER EQUATION IN A MODEL OF PYROLYSIS SPRAY USING 4q-ORDER m-BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Int. Journal of Heat and Technology, Vol.26(1) pp. 49-53 (2008).
10. " ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOMOGENEOUS CHARACTERISTIC DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE APPLIED PHYSICS CANONICAL FORMULATIONS-RELATED BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Journal of Analysis and Computation, Accepted, Vol. 4(2) In Press (2008).
11. " INVESTIGATION OF THERMAL DIFFUSIVITY-MICROHARDNESS CORRELATION EXTENDED TO SURFACE-NITRURED STEEL USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION ", Modern Physics Letters B, Volume: 22, Issue: 29 (2008) pp. 2893 – 2907
12. " A BOUBAKER-TURKI POLYNOMIALS SOLUTION TO PANCREATIC ISLET BLOOD FLOW BIOPHYSICAL EQUATIONS IN THE CASE OF A PRESET MONITORED SPATIAL ROTATING FIELD", Research & Reviews in BioSciences ٍVolume 2, (1)pp. 78-81 (2008).
13. " ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENERATING FUNCTION AND A CHEBYSHEV DEPENDENT INHOMOGENEOUS SECOND ORDER DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE HEAT EQUATION RELATED m-BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", International Journal of Applications and Applied Mathematics (AAM) , Vol. 3, No. 2 (December 2008) pp. 329 – 336
14. " A NEW POLYNOMIAL SEQUENCE AS A GUIDE TO NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS FOR APPLIED-PHYSICS-RELATED PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS UNDER DIRICHLET-NEWMAN-TYPE EXOGENOUS BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ", Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations NMPDE, DOI: 10.1002/num.20374, Accepted: 2 April , Published Online: 10 Jul, 008 (2008).
15. " A NEW ANALYTIC EXPRESSION AS A GUIDE TO ESTABLISH A CHARACTERISTIC DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION TO THE HEAT EQUATION-RELATED BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", International Journal of Applied Mathematics , Vol.21 No. 2 pp. 171-177 (2008).
16. " A BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS SOLUTION TO HEAT EQUATION FOR MONITORING A3 POINT EVOLUTION DURING RESISTANCE SPOT WELDING ", International Journal of Heat and Technology, 26(2) (2008) pp. 141-146.
17. "A DYNAMICAL MODEL FOR INVESTIGATION OF A3 POINT MAXIMAL SPATIAL EVOLUTION DURING RESISTANCE SPOT WELDING USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS", European Physical Journal-Applied Physic, EPJAP , Vol. 44, 317-322 (2008)
18. " NEW TERNARY COMPOUNDS STOECHIOMETRY-LINKED THERMAL BEHAVIOUR OPTIMISATION USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Accepted: 18 September (2008); DOI:10.1016/j.jallcom.2008.09.148
19. " STUDY OF TEMPERATURE 3D PROFILE DURING WELD HEATING PHASE USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION ", Thermochimica acta, Volume 482, Issues 1-2, (15 January 2009) 8-11
20. "MORPHOLOGICAL AND THERMAL PROPERTIES OF -SnS2 SPRAYED FILMS USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION", Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Accepted: 2 October (2008).
22. "LIMIT AND UNIQUENESS OF THE BOUBAKER-ZHAO POLYNOMIALS SINGLE IMAGINARY ROOT SEQUENCE", International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 1, No. N09, (2008) 13–16
23. " ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENERATING FUNCTION AND A CHEBYSHEV-LIKE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE HEAT EQUATION RELATED M-BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Bulletin of Pure and Applied Mathematics Accepted: 28 July (2008) To appear in Vol. 3, No.1, June 2009.
24. " THE OPTOTHERMAL EXPANSIVITY: A BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION-RELATED PAPRAMETER FOR OTIMIZING PV-T HYBRID SOLAR CELLS FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS", Functional Materials Letter Accepted: 30 October (2008).
25. " EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL COOLING VELOCITY PROFILE INSIDE LASER WELDED METALS USING KEYHOLE APPROXIMATION AND BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION ", Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry , Accepted Jan. 2009, Ref: No. JTAC-D-08-00021R1
26. " A SOLUTION THE HEAT TRANSFER EQUATION INSIDE HYDROGEN CRYOGENIC VESSELS USING BOUBAKER-ZHAO POLYNOMIALS ", Cryogenics, Paper N° CRYOGENICS-D-08-00142, Accepted (2008).
27. " SOME NEW PROPERTIES OF THE APPLIED-PHYSICS RELATED BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS , Journal of Differential Equations and C.P. Volume 1 (2009) pp.7-19.
28. " THE 3D AMLOUK-BOUBAKER EXPANSIVITY-ENERGY GAP-VICKERS HARDNESS ABACUS: A NEW TOOL FOR OTIMIZING SEMICONDUCTOR THIN FILM MATERIALS", Materials Letters Accepted: Jan 21 (2009).[40]
29. " ON THE EARLIEST DEFINITION OF THE BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS IN THE PAPER: ENHANCEMENT OF PYROLYSIS SPRAY DISPOSAL PERFORMANCE USING THERMAL TIME-RESPONSE TO PRECURSOR UNIFORM DEPOSITION (COMMENT)", European Physical Journal-Applied Physic, EPJAP , Accepted: Jan 19(2009).[41]
30. " LEGENDRE, BESSEL AND BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS THEORETICAL EXPRESSIONS OF LOW TEMPERATURE PROFILE IN A PYROLYSIS SPRAY MODEL: CASE OF GAUSSIAN DEPOSITED LAYER ", Modern Physics Letters B, Accepted: Dec.29 (2008).
Neil J. A. Sloane, Triangle read by rows of coefficients of Boubaker polynomial B_n(x) in order of decreasing exponentsA138034
Roger L. Bagula and Gary Adamson, Triangle of coefficients of Recursive Polynomials for Boubaker polynomials, OEIS (Encyclopedia of Integer SequencesA137276
Roger L. Bagula, Triangle of coefficients of Boubaker recursive polynomials with even powers transformed as x->Sqrt[y]A137289 Neil J. A. Sloane and R. J. Mathar, Irregular triangle read by rows of coefficients of Boubaker polynomial B_n(x) in order of decreasing exponents A135936
S. Slama. A Boubaker Polynomials Solution to Heat Equation for Monitoring A3 Point Evolution During Resistance Spot Welding,. International Journal of Heat and Technology [ISSN: 0392-8764, by EDIZIONI ETS] Volume 26(2) (2008) pages:141-146.
Roger L. Bagula, Differentiation of:A135929 Triangle read by rows: row n gives coefficients of Differential Boubaker polynomial P(x,n) in order of decreasing exponents, A136255
A. Bannour, Triangle read by rows: row n gives coefficients of the modified Boubaker polynomial mB_n(X) in order of decreasing exponents, OEIS (Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences), A138476A138476
Roger L. Bagula, Integral form of A135929 :Triangle read by rows: row n gives coefficients of Integral form of Boubaker polynomial B_n(x) in order of decreasing exponentsA136256
J. Ganouchi. A attempt to solve the heat transfer equation in a model of pyrolysis spray using 4q-order m-Boubaker polynomials. International Journal of Heat and Technology [ISSN: 0392-8764, by EDIZIONI ETS] Volume: 26 (2008) pages: 49-53.
Ting Gang-Zhao, B. Ben Mahmoud, M. A. Toumi, O. P. Faromika, M. Dada, O. B. Awojoyogbe, J. Magnuson and F. Lin (2009). Some new Properties of the Applied-physics Related Boubaker Polynomials. Differential Equations and Control Processes 1. Ting ganZ (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC) — Ting ganZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
In fact, if there are problems linked to sockpuppetry, racism, xenophobia, extra-wiki problems, they might be solved away from this frame.
Any one can ‘say ‘ these polynomials are not notable , but WIKIPEDIA has an expressive, written and clear rule for that!! (see the passage from http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_Notability of special functions)
Examples Polynomials, Mathematical identities etc.
The questions to ask (for NOTABILITY) are:
1. Have they been the main subject of (at least two) published papers, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this sequence?
2. Are they cited in MathWorld or PlanetMath ?
3. Are they cited in in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)?
4. Do they have a demonstrated (and/or) published expression?
An affirmative answer to one these questions indicates that the polynomials or mathematical identities are notable for Wikipedia to have an article about it.
So, any contributer should first answer to the simple question: Do these polynomials respond to these (above 1. 2. 3. &4) written rule of notability ??
As long as the AFD is about notability, any extra debate should be held out of this scientific field. i e. for merging, the article is enough long ans self-standing, and merging it with Chebyshev (because there is a link) will lead to merging Dickson , Lucas an tens of other polynomials. Since the debate is about notability, this issue in not adequate ( i.e. if notability is not established, how to merge ??) Ting ganZ (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following section which explains the links to other polynomials has been erased from the article (by user:Arthur Rubin,24h earlier with the mention WRONG !!!)
The same user DELETED yestrday a part of other pages that refers to the article. In such way, users will be wrongly informed. Moreover,discrediting OEIS as a source of notability, although one could make a good case for absence from OEIS being a good source for absence of notability is equivalent to discrediting eminent and world-wide known and awarded scientists who worked on boubaker polynomials (i.e. Neil J. A. Sloane,A. Bannour... see refernces above)
user:Arthur Rubin is doing his best to discretise the Boubaker polynomials (up to descretise internationnaly recognized institutions and to recall???? a discussion at WT:MATH where OEIS was discredited ), that is his right, but things must be carried out in respect to WP rules and scientist's reputation. Ting ganZ (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some hits could give answer to this :
---To the question :“Have they been the main subject of (at least two) published papers, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this sequence?
The answer is :
In Science-direct (20 hits, only peer reviewed publications) [45]
In Google Scholar (17 hits, only peer reviewed publications, oppositely to 7 as it was wrongly confirmed by the AFD nominator Popo_Le_Chien) ) (20 hits, only peer reviewed publications) [46]
---To the question: Are they cited in MathWorld or PlanetMath ? The answer is :
In PlanetMath (3 pages, with no-mention of WIKEPEDIA !! , oppositely to what ‘informed’ the AFD nominator Popo_Le_Chien) [47]
---To the question :Are they cited in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)? The answer is :
17 hits for Dickson Polynomials [48]
13 hits for Boubaker Polynomials [49]
---To the question :Do they have a demonstrated (and/or) published expression?
The answer is : Yes see the article itself. Gilles mecrire (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — Gilles mecrire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
if in his mind the relations:
are TRIVIAL
What about the relation that defines Dickson Polinomials
One must be aware about what one says; otherwise it will be felt, that (in good faith) anythig is Ok for banning this page???
Edwarddd (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — Edwarddd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Acoording to the whole discussion and the deep advise of User GillesC, two major issues are confirmed:
... The polynomial first pretender is a bad guy (as long as he never tried to prove the opposite)
... The polynomials are notable according to WP rules.
As the vocation of WP is not to punish evil, to associate the bad acts of a person who did not contribute to this page, to the outcome of this page is sipmly abusive. PS. If any opposite vote is banned or blocked , it won't be a discussion.
I helped by shifting contested references to 'Additional reading' and refreshing the remaining ones in a neutral way, with no-link to the controversial fellows 'Boubaker'and 'Ben Mahmoud'. The new version will help the community concentrating on the AFD purpose according to Wikpedia rules.Jonespoll (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — Jonespoll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
PS. To Administrators: User Arthur Rubin (see above) has vandalised the project page Boubaker Polynomials twice under the reason ( Dickson Polynomials are the chebychev ones!!!???? ) WP can verify that these two Polynomials are different and even HAVE DIFFERENT PAGES IN WIKPEDIA !!!, is this user serious ???. Please prevent this UNFOUNDED vandalismJonnyHallid (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Arthur Rubin, you had changed the concerned page on awrong fundament (from your own sayings) :
Dickson polynomials are Chebyshev ones !!!!
Despite You were told they HAVE DIFFERENT PAGES AT WIKIPEDIA !!! (they are historically and Mathematically different) When yo do change on this basis , when other contributors try to correct it, it is VANDALISM as the message you sent me :
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Boubaker polynomials.... may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Now , you say publicly : If you want to add ..., I'd consider it irreleant and non-notabl?????e Why this threat??? please do not block me , it is not a war, and blocking is a sign of failure... not fairJonnyHallid (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, sometimes sockpuppetry is caused by blocking abuse. This is not the case, you are not abusing and we are normal contriubutors on a shared server, and who can transmit to you any information (address telephoe ..etc) but as the edition 'war' (as you told me in the warning on the discussion page) is not balanced, you have the right to block and revert , we do not, we finally agree with you , Dickson's are Chebyshev's. But do you alllow us a restructuration of the reference section (with no change to the remaining etxt) that would, for sure, help the community to have a consensus on this page ?JonnyHallid (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hits in the Scientific domain gave these applications (with explanation in simple English) :
--Heat transfer spray model: using Bessel and Boubaker polynomials (a thermal device)
--Temperature 3D profiling in welds (which means drawing temperature variation)
--A Boubaker polynomials (BPES)-related protocol for thin films ( a method for studying the characteristics of the sprayed materials)
--Sulfur/selenium substitution effects using (BPES) (a physical-chemical study)
--A solution to Bloch NMR flow equations using m-Boubaker polynomials (Medical application)
--Properties of β-SnS2 sprayed thin films using Boubaker polynomials (Material science)
--Stoichiometry-linked thermal behavior optimisation using Boubaker polynomials(a physical-chemical study)
There are also some Mathematical studies.Etaittunpe (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the last line of the referred work it is clearly written that Sloan is the AUTHOR and not cateloger!!! (a bit of respect to scientist works, please ). So the mistake is user Arthur Rubin’s (none is perfect!) Hilberts (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, in order to diminish the notability of a simple item; an old recognized Vandal (see his historics) IS ALLOWED TO ERASE A WP:EN RULE ind descretise a whole international institution ?????? with a reason evoked 5 times in the last AFD : (edited by an Arab country issued account ) ????
This irregular action is strangely endorsed by Arthur Rubin who answers to him:
Good work ( French Tourist ) !!! . For an integer sequence, I'd say it not appearing in OEIS is definitive that it is not notable, but that's just me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
And so, OEIS is DEFINITIVELY banned (as likely in Freach WP) as a not notable source just for a purpose !!!!
It seems, as usual, that FrenchWP users are going to impose their rules to En:WP (see the last AFD where the arrival of clem and his group has deviated the regularly begun discussion.) what is the opinion of JackSchmidt?? Hilberts (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
( I am also an Arab country issued account user , watching this thing from the beginning,) but please consider my opinion on the Notability, not on the 'boubaker' person.Georgesy (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, a whole people is BANNED, <Range of 10 000 000 IPs!!!, like what happened in FrencWP> even those with old accounts...
For a discussion of Notability it become a discussion on rules of Noatbility , then on a person Notability, and finally on a person's RACE Notability ... it is amazing ...It must be called:
the FrenchTourist-Arthur Rubin One way Discussion (is a FRENCh:WP adminstrator !!! [53] with a long vandalism past (see the hisotrics linked to his French page [54] and see what he was considered to be !!!)
Or :
the Fr:WP conquest on En:WP (see last AFD) ... honest WP:EN administrators, be aware!!! Hilberts (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Hits in the Scientific domain gave these applications (with explanation in simple English) : --Heat transfer spray model: using Bessel and Boubaker polynomials (a thermal device) --Temperature 3D profiling in welds (which means drawing temperature variation) --A Boubaker polynomials (BPES)-related protocol for thin films ( a method for studying the characteristics of the sprayed materials) --Sulfur/selenium substitution effects using (BPES) (a physical-chemical study) --A solution to Bloch NMR flow equations using m-Boubaker polynomials (Medical application) --Properties of β-SnS2 sprayed thin films using Boubaker polynomials (Material science) --Stoichiometry-linked thermal behavior optimisation using Boubaker polynomials(a physical-chemical study) There are also some Mathematical studies.Etaittunpe (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC) o Comment If they are not Notable, at least they have notable applications …" I then posted:
So far there has been no response; I therefore conclude that references are not available. This is the opinion of a non-mathematician who can hardly be accused of bias in the matter. The applications given do look reasonably notable to me. But without independent, reliable, and verifiable references they count for nothing, I'm afraid. My apologies to those who may resent an outsider sticking an oar in. I have often found that an outsider's view can be of use (if only by causing amusement at his ignorance...). Peridon (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]