The result was delete. Blueboy96 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, see WP:NEO; the cited source does not use this term, and there is no indication that anyone else does. The article also violates WP:NPOV. I already redirected this once to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, but the author reverted me without explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Game mod with no sourcing. This has been here for years and this is the best that can be said about it? Woogee (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Spotify. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. One of the references is to a blog, which is probably not a WP:RS, so that leaves only one reference, which is not enough to establish notability. greenrd (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ready to Die. Consensus exists that the song does not meet the notability criteria for songs and so thus should be redirected to the album's article. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable single, fails WP:NSONG. Contested redirect. SummerPhD (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither one of those facts address the concern. This song fails WP:NSONG. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seenoahrunacrossthefield (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 April 2010
The result was keep. Article has been better sourced, and nominator has changed to very weak keep. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not established under the notability guideline for musicians. All the sources I could find when reviewing my own speedy deletion would be inadequate to establish notability. I think the best is this blogcritics entry. Chaser (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. While the nominator wouldn't normally be the one closing a debate and deleting an article, I think it's ok in this case, since I initially declined to speedy delete this and we clearly have a snowball going here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I declined to speedy this, the creator removed my WP:PROD without fixing the underlying problems or commenting on the proposed deletion. There are no reliable sources cited, I found none in my own search, I couldn't even find reference to this at the Transformers wiki. Not notable or verifiable. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article about an academic presents no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. A prod was declined with no improvement to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding any sources with detailed coverage, but this may be due to the language issue. I found a passing reference in the Taipei Times, but that's it. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn, so non-administrator close. Dream Focus 00:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not see any 3rd party reliable sources showing notability, Fails WP:CORP. Author removed prod without addressing issues. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Forget it... Thanks Silverseren...Admin, Please Close. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I have closed this early because it is starting to become disruptive. The subject is clearly not notable for their own article; the only issue is whether they should be mentioned in other articles, which is an editorial decision. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the PROD-tag which was deleted without explanation. It read, With sources including Facebook and YouTube, this BLP is about a person essentially only notable for one event (two distinctly related events, at a stretch), and uses a copyrighted image. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Now if you will excuse me I have to go sterilize the finger I used to push the "keep" button. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable racist encyclopedia. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metapedia . Metapedia was eventually made a protected redirect because of repeated attempts at creating a new Metapedia article. Speedy delete was declined because article is substantially different from past versions. Clinchfield (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page that has no articles with ambiguous titles other than the main page -- there is nothing to disambiguate. The content was removed from Neologism by User:Wolfkeeper [3] with the edit summary Other uses: removed 'other uses' articles are not disamb pages. The only one of the linked articles that even mentions "neologism" is Aphasia, and in that context the intended reference is to neologism, not to some other sense. Unless there are other articles with titles that are ambiguous with "neologism", the disambiguation page is unnecessary. older ≠ wiser 18:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NPOV both in its writing and its sources. The first source is a forum posting that could have been made by anyone. The second is a blog that reads like it was written by a close family member or friend.
I cannot find significant media coverage or any third party information on Wan Kuzain Wan Kamal that would merit his inclusion in Wikipedia. HarlandQPitt (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable author. Vanity page created by author for a book he wrote and self-published. Neither author nor novel seem to be notable in any reference that I can locate. There is another one or two Alan Lawson's out there that are authors, but none of them are this person. The author seems to have added his book to every online site he can find also, they don't seem to be independent. Canterbury Tail talk 17:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to VoteVets.org#VetVoice_blog. Unanimous. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Former BLP Prod--There seem to be sources that he is fairly widely interviewed and cited. I added one to start with. But I am not sure that his career his notable , and I would rather the community decide. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 15:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by this one, found while checking BLP prods. I could document only the membership in the Greek football club Panathinaikos, [4] --which is not mentioned in the article. I could find no refs in the Googles for the others. There is however at least one Michael Spanos in American football. As it is not my field, I wonder about the accuracy and authenticity of the article, and hope the people who know more about sources for this sport can help with this. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the content of the article is correct. there is a soccer player michalis spanos in greek football!he is a central defender and as far as i know he has indeed played in italy some seasons ago.only that last seasons he has not been playing in the super league of greece but in the second and third national division! he is indeed born in 1981 as far as i know and i also think he is from florina that is a town in the greek-yugoslavian borders. having this in mind i think that the article is correct..as there are many common things with this player to be considered a co incidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.50.111 (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the article is authentic.Michalis Spanos was indeed part of the roster of AEK ATHENS in the past but he just did not had more than 4 or 5 caps with this club! he certainly did better in Italy and became more known in Greece when he came back and was a major contribution to some second division clubs such as Kalamata and Ethnikos Piraeus!although i have no data about him signing to Aris salonica but on the other hand it may be something fresh as the up coming transfer season in Greece is in one month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.50.111 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources for that are websites of the above mentioned teams!i found him in fc Kalamata roster 3 seasons ago..and was also in the ethnikos Piraeus roster until last january!these are facts from greek newspapers ,football mags and also there are highlights of him on a sports show on NET channel that covers the action of the second division every week! in the year that Padova FC was promoted from c1 to serie B he is also part of the roster!was not so hard to find! Obviously he is not a hot shot player or whatsoever..but its not that the guy does not...exist!he is known in athens!as far as the end of the article that he is signed by Aris...indeed in the clubs websight there is no official report but there are some websites (contra.gr ,sport-fm.gr,sportime.gr) that within the last month have this as a rumour spreading!that he will eventually sign there with the start of the official transfer window!i dont know more on this.
The result was userfy to User:Nineteen Nightmares/Valley Entertainment Monthly. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable publication. The primary contributor has written that the paper was published for less than a year, had a circulation of about 1,000, and was free [5]; since these qualities have been noted as mitigating against notability, they have been removed from the article. Article is mostly anecdotal, trivial, and reads like a personal reminiscence, original research. It is largely unsourced, and those cites that are provided don't clearly establish any importance or prominence as a journalistic venture--the foremost reference is to an article in Flipside (fanzine), whose Wikipedia article itself has no objective references supporting importance or notibility. These appear to be publications of the alternative press, but the guidelines for encyclopedic inclusion are no different than they are for other entities. The primary contributor, a single purpose account, has done much work on this, none of which merits the continued removal of notability and reference tags. Disclosure: I placed many of those templates, and attempted to engage the article's creator, as an IP account. JNW (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Note Nineteen Nightmares has copied and pasted the article to User:Nineteen Nightmares/Sandbox so there will have to be a history merge to preserve GFDL integrity. Ty 23:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Edits transferred to main article and sandbox deleted. Ty 23:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, these two steps are being ignored. 67.160.248.231 (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]1.Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy (WP:DEL), which explains valid grounds for deletion. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing.
2.Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic. Some articles may have been harmed by vandalism or poor editing. Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered.
The whole issue of notability does raise serious question which better-qualified wikipedians than me/I have already thrashed out, so this ain’t the place to do it. So, while a local paper, based around a small community, with a circulation of 1,000 copies obviously means nothing in comparison to the circulation of a national newspaper, it may be notable and influential within that community. And the fact that an alternative newspaper doesn’t get itself rave write-ups in the national press (the source of much “reliable” references at Wikipedia) has less to do with notability than with monopolising tactics of the media groups. And while on the subject of alternative and underground, who gave a penny for Gary Larson and Matt Groenig way back when? Or at the other end of the quality scale (subjective), the fact that so-and-so drew up a list of the 1001 best albums of all time, now a major reference here at Wikipedia. But I digress...
Just out of curiousity, I clicked on The San Francisco Bay Guardian mentioned above and at the [[Category:Alternative weekly newspapers|United States]] and the first one I chose at random, Chinook (newspaper), turns out to have had only a slightly longer lifespan than this AfD. I realise that the fact that one article exists doesn’t justify the existence of another, but precisely the existence of this particular AfD has given me access to some other interesting material which happens to link in neatly with...
Obviously none of the above does much to argue objectively for “keep”, and I’m pretty sure the article will be scrapped, but I still think it’s great that Wikipedia can serve as a reference for local events and institutions – however shortlived they may have been, or however long ago they disappeared - that the Establishment doesn't want to keep. Provided they conform to basic guidelines at Wikipedia. Of which notability is the least objective.--Technopat (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone above said the following:
"And I know of a good many members of academia who have much to contribute to Wikipedia and who have tried to participate here only to be bitten by more aggressive editors..."
No kidding. Hey, I tell you what! Let's all go around and clean up all the newspapers from Wikipedia that aren't owned by Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner!!! Yeah!!!
I'll say this one last time, this whole thing has been an exercise in the ridiculous. If anyone bothered to read the article and decided to turn on their brains instead of their banhammers, we'd probably have some pretty interesting stuff on Wiki. -Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is unclear. Is disc golf a notable professional sport? The last paragraph seems to be promoting the subject's products. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. I haven't gotten much sleep in the past few days and overlooked the chart position. –Chase (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:NSONG. –Chase (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable writer from Slovenia. The contents has been copied from the Slovene Wikipedia, where it was added by sl:User:Daco (contribs), identified as Darko Žlebnik, i.e. self-promotion. Eleassar my talk 14:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP, not notable. Only a few hundred google hits, most of which are for unrelated businesses; no reliable secondary sources independent of the business. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only reference I could find to B2e are various links to known virus. Was considering speedy on Notability, but thought I'd get some additional input in case the virus B2e just swamps any chance of the program discussed in the article making the google list. Thoughts? --Haruth (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect all to their appropriate section in LOMOcean Design. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a Walled-gardenish set of articles on boats/yachts (most articles do not make it clear whether their subject is a class or a single vessel) designed by LOMOcean Design. All have a very advertorial style, and I suspect that User:Mwin044 has a conflict of interest (simply on the basis that I don't beleive anyone without a CoI would create such a series of articles as their only contribution). Nearly all sources are first/second party. Some boats have third-party reviews, but I don't believe that they are enough to hang an article on. I am not nominating LOMOcean Design itself, since there may well be sufficient notability. Indeed, smerging these articles with their third-party refs might be the best means to rescue LOMOcean Design. dramatic (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons given above:
dramatic (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article about an individual who was related to notable people but who was not notable in his own right Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Pretty clear consensus to keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI. The original author, User:Burkeguy, has demonstrated WP:SPA with only contributing to this article. While the article itself was written with the help of an advanced user, User:Chzz, it is still written in a style that seems advertising the subject's accomplishments and self-published books. The 1st reference section of the article is made up of mostly Washington Post articles written by the subject and colleagues. At the top of the biographical page at http://www.resume-place.com/kathryn-k-troutman/kathryns-bio/ is a link to this page, seemingly written by a outsider, but in reality, by someone associated with the subject who outed themselves as such on the Talk page. I feel that it is a violation of WP:Resume. And in conclusion, I feel this is a WP:BAI (reason 1). AeonicOmega(Watcha say?) 06:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 15:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Apparently claims of notability, though not valid, trump WP:BAND. Woogee (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Downtown Fiction is notable for the following reasons:
1) Signed to Major Label
2) On both of the biggest US touring rock festivals of 2010
3) Have received over 25 syncs on MTV and E! network television shows including The Hills, The Real World, Keeping Up with The Kardashians, and the season finale of MTV's "Styl'd".
4) They've released two EPs, both of which charted Top 50 on iTunes and ranked in the Top 50 Billboard Heat Seekers Charts
5) Trended number 1 on Twitter Worldwide on multiple occasions
How is this band not notable?
Additional links for proof of TV Syncs:
- http://www.mtv.com/shows/the_hills/season_5/episode.jhtml?episodeID=161300
- http://www.mtv.com/shows/styld/episode.jhtml?episodeID=161238
- http://www.mtv.com/shows/rwrr_challenge/fresh_meat_2/episode.jhtml?episodeID=167263
Please reconsider —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.211.56 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Tone 14:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a protologism sourced from a forum post. I noticed this because another user tried to nominate this using Twinkle but never created the discussion page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Ironholds (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang terms.
It's not even correct, the phrase is an verb-type phrase 'open a can of whoop ass', but verb titles aren't allowed either (WP:Title); and it's covered at Wiktionary:open a can of whoop ass.
The article consists entirely of a dictionary definition of the term (which means 'a beating' or assault), and a bunch of uses; apparently you can find the term used on bumper stickers, in a powder puff girls short and many other exciting places like on a can of peanuts and an energy drink. I'm reading and waiting for the encyclopedic bit. Oh wait. There isn't one.
I'm calling for DELETE - Wolfkeeper 02:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep (WP:KEEP, WP:SNOW). Non-admin closure. — Rankiri (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inherently WP:POV and WP:OR . It's not for wiki to debate fact V theory of evolution Gnevin (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a list of seemingly unnotable Hungarian participants in beauty contests and falls foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and possibly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Rough consensus is that the subject is a notable concept to be expanded and improved. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Largely non-notable, makes claim that CIWS systems are referred to as sentry guns, when that term is basically only used in fiction, without any support. Article was initially about fictional uses, with a slight amount of coverage of real uses, but since had fictional info cut out. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn after article was improved. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I speedily deleted this article because of the lack of evidence of notability, but restored it at request from the article's creator, who believed he could supply evidence. In my opinion, he has failed to do so. Deb (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ℳøℕø 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recently started web company without any independent references, no obvious claims of notability Dmol (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
seems like marketing to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.130.46.151 (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC) — 89.130.46.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [19]. simply being a charity that does "important work" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. another non notable tiny organisation. nothing in gnews [20]. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Opinions are split on whether or not the subject should remain as a standalone article or merged so that discussion can continue on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor [21] and non-notable [22] character in the Book of Mormon. Note: this follows an unusual claim that WP:FICT does not apply to mythology [23]. ―AoV² 01:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of serveral advertisements created by Keen Media Eeekster (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No non-trivial coverage found anywhere. A couple hits in Dutch but machine translation showed them to be trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No non-trivial sources found. Character doesn't have an article either. No proof that she's credited as a "main cast member." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability, tagged since November. Only sources found were trivial or primary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Computer program with no evidence of notability. The program is, according to the article, still in Beta. If the final version achieves some significance then surely that is the time for an article. Malcolma (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE, not to mention most of this page has mostly unsourced (and likely false) claims. –Chase (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, i think this page is well structered and well thought up,--71.67.179.158 (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no sound way to fix this stub. Its correct title would be "Sonder Gerät" or "Sondergerät" which translates (from German) to "special device" or "special equipment". The term was used in reference to various military prototypes, one of which is loosely described in the current one-liner. But there is no specific piece of equipment that goes by that name. Pichpich (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article created under WP:COI by subject (User:Fiberlink), blatant WP:COPYVIO of their commercial whitepaper, irrelevant/unreliable/paywalled/self-published sources used (since removed), not verifiably notable, reads like an advert (even if author removed the tag), lots of original research, etc. etc. thus:
Hello Sam!
I am the author of the article Mobility-as-a-Service.
I am new to Wikipedia and this is one of my first contributions to Wikipedia. Before starting to write in Wikipedia, I had very thoroughly studied the guidelines for contribution to Wikipedia. Before making my article live, I had been developing it in my Sandbox space and had got the article reviewed from at least four wiki editors. I have been constantly criticized for the advert tone of the article. I have not ignored this remark and am working on to improve the article. If you look at the article (with references added), I have placed enough references to maintain the notability of the article. When you said that I have violated the copyright acts by using one of the readily available white papers, I did not understand. The reference white paper was readily available on the public domain. I consulted my mentor and he explained that I might have picked up content of the article directly from the whitepaper. I am a ‘writer’ by profession and do not enjoy infringing. However, I am currently restudying my article to verify your claim.
I have worked hard on my article and hope to contribute more to Wikipedia articles. I request you to not nominate the article for deletion. I would be happy to work on the article in my stub area under your mentorship. I had been looking for a mentor under the wiki computing projects and will be glad to get your help. PCJain (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I work on this article in my stub area? I will rewrite my article taking care of the above facts. If I do have an option, can someone help me move the article to my stub area? PCJain (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
another WP:NOBLECAUSE Vietnamese organisation. fails WP:ORG. 4 gnews hits for Vietnamese name [26]. hardly anything in English [27]. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 15:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Bluehotel (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging into a list can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable guitar technique. An IP editor told me "Non notable? There are plenty of non notable techniques on wikipedia you ain't moaning about... retard)" CynofGavuf 11:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are several 'non-notable' techniques on Wikipedia. It is a valid technique and generally used in thrash metal, even today. A lot of guitarists still use this technique. Just because it isn't some mainstream rubbish like indie kids play, doesn't mean it isn't a well known and heavily used technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.103.60 (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will contribute to the list if that's the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete but I will be tagging the article for WP:COI issues. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to indicate this race is notable. CynofGavuf 10:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a link to the website of the Tasmanian athletics league which explains the race and its importance. check link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burniegift (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I can find that might come close to satisfying WP:V and WP:N is this paper, part of the "Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web". It's highly cited, but I noted that the authors are part of the Annotea development team. Could not find any independent sources from reliable publications. Marasmusine (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]