The result was speedy delete - mistake request and in wrong namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a request, not the thing to put in an article space. Belugaboy Talk to Me! 13:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) with no inherent or inherited notability. Google news produces a grand total of two results about a police dog from the department, with much of the same on the regular google search. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable software. Can't find any reliable, independent third-party sources to establish notability. Notability and primarysources cleanup tags have been languishing on the article since June 2009. Psychonaut (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been searching for WP:RS compliant sources and citations. I have not yet succeeded. I've stripped out non RS sources, cited the guy's book (anyone can have an ISBN and a book, so that doesn't make him notable), and cited his patent (yup, anyone can have a patent, too). He's verifiable in the same way that I'm verifiable. But he is not notable in the same way that I am not notable. Because there is an editor actively seeking to improve the article I have chosen AfD instead of the Speedy route, even though it could so easily be speedied. But I want to play fair with the effort made so far. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
*In view of the latest improvements to this article, the request for deletion should be moot. The article is completely rewritten. Most of the comments on this page are prior to rewriting of the page and addition of 34 cites, most of them of national or international scope.
When majority of comments on this page were made, there were no cites in this article.
The article meets all the requirements of Wikepedia regarding Biography of Living Persons. I request the Administrator to read the completely rewritten article and make a decision based on Wikepedia guidelines on notability and not based on consensus.If this course is not possible, please inform me the procedure for appeal.
John williams 7 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams[reply]
I plan to continue to add to Nigam Arora page as I get time and invite others to contribute to this page. I also intend to contribute the material I have found to other pages on Wikepedia and also will start new pages where appropriate.
Can someone please guide me how to write about controversies? In the literature there are fans of Nigam Arora's inventions and there are detractors. I would like to take a balanced approach by equal space to those who do not like him and and those who praise his work.
--John williams 7 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams[reply]
I had always thought of Wikepedia as a collegial place where volunteers selflessly put in lots of effort to benefit others with information. Since over years, I have benefitted from Wikepedia I thought it was now my turn to contribute.
Was I in for a big surprise? Within minutes of publishing a straigtforward article my head was bitten off. Certainly I was ignorant about Wikepedia policies, but it would been nice if experienced Wikepedians offered to help instead of intimidating me. Then I found extremely helpful people in RohnJones and Icairns; my heartful thanks to these two. Also my thanks to all those from whose work I have benefitted over the years.
The insipiration I got from RohnJones and Icairns sustained me through the next upheavel which I am hoping was the result of mis-identity.My request for cooperation was unheeded. I was again surprised that when there is a considerable evidence that someone who has a vendetta against me in REAL LIFE may be a person on Wikepedia, there appears to be no good way to clear up the issue in a civil and amicable manner. The situation is further complicated because, again to my surprise,some people on Wikepedia do not use their real identity. In any case, my apologies for harsh words,in the event of mis-identification on my part. There is no way to confirm because of fictional identities.
It would appear to me that less robust newcomers would simply quit if they face what I faced on Wikepedia in writing my first article. I almost quit, because I have nothing to gain from this article on Nigam Arora. Perhaps this is on purpose and this makes sense if Wikepedia is overpopulated with editors and newcomers are not welcome. If this is the case, I suggest to those who run Wikepedia to post a clear sign, 'NEW EDITORS ARE NOT WELCOME' Such a clear language would help other newcomers not go through the pain, abuse and intimidation I went through.
On the other hand, if new editors are welcome, I suggest to those who run Wikepedia to craft strict policies so that new comers are not subjected to abuse. Most new comers will make mistakes and will not be familiar with extensive policies of Wikepedia. What would be wrong in holding hands of newcomers, teaching them and being gentle with them when they make mistakes? Should Wikepedia decide to go in this direction, I will be glad to help and invite those in power to let me know how best I can help Wikepedia.
--John williams 7 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams[reply]
John williams 7 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC) John Williams[reply]
Most of the comments appear to be prior to rewriting of the page and addition of 34 cites. Previosly there were no cites.
The comment about only a blurb in Indianapolis is strange and not based on facts. 29 of 34 cites are of national or international scope. In addition there are several cites related to Indianapolis starting from 1987 and stretching over a long period of time.
Nigam Arora has verified record of notability across two continents over a period of at least 23 years. Certainly two continents are bigger than the city of Indianapolis alone. Perhaps honestly there is some confusion between Indanapolis and India. India is a large country in the continent of Asia and Indianapolis is a city in USA.
He founded two of the fastest companies in the USA not just Indiana. His company,Action Sytems Inc was named 29th fastest growing company in the United states, not just state of Indiana or city of Indianapolis. This company did business with over 50 nuclear plants across the globe. I just checked and found there are no nuclear plants in th state of Indiana or city of Indianapolis. As a matter of fact there are only 104 operating commercial nuclear plants in the entire country of USA.
His company Action Systems Technology was ranked 103rd fastest growing company in the United States, not in the state of Indiana.
His companies did business internationally, not just in one state of the United States.
United States Patent and Trademark Office is part of the Federal Government of the United States and not part of Indianapolis city government.
United States Patent and Trademark Office granted major patent claims to him out of Washington DC and not out of Indianapolis. It appears that United states Patent and Trademark office has no presence in the city of Indianapolis. The 28 patent claims are enforceable across the USA, not only in the city of Indianapolis and enforceable under the Federal Law. A city or state has no jurisdiction over patents: major patents are not the matter of one city .
His inventions have been used all over the world, not just in one city. I have gathered lot of material on his inventions and there use across the world.
Amazon.com , and Barnes and Noble are international organizations and not based in city of Indianapolis.
He has been called foremost expert in radiation monitoring in power plants by a magazine of international scope. Since there are no nuclear plants in Indianapolis or the state of Indiana, this activity is obviously carried out soewhere else. As a matter of fact, sources I have gathered from the library show that Nigam Arora's activities have been international in scope.
It is not believable that the city of Indianapolis has 369 municipalities if that is what a prior comment implies; Nigam Arora was the founder and CEO of the B2B exchange for 369 municipalities, at least 368 of these municipalities would have to be outside the city of Indianapolis.
There is lot more I can add to this argument and will add if an appeal is needed.
Let us not become members of the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY. Just because someone does not accept that the earth is round does not mean Wikepedia should declare the earth flat
--John williams 7 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams[reply]
Keep
Majority of the cited sources are major publications with large circulation and national or international scope. These are available in libraries. I found them in libraries.
Subscription based sources do not show up in Google search. Older sources also do not show up in Google search. Some sources show up in Google , but the searcher will have to be dilligent to go throuh all the pages on Google not just the first few pages.
Older sources also do not show up online. International sources, especially older ones are often not on Google.
I am new to Wikepedia, but it seems strange that comments are made based solely on the first couple of pages of Google search. What happened to going to libraries, like I did for this article, and doing proper due dilligence?
What would be the point of Wikepedia if WIkepedia must be limited to first few pages of Google? In such a case Wikepedia would be redundant and there will be no point to its existence. I am new to wikepedia, so I do not know what Wikepedians want? But it seems to me the point of Wikepedia is to have well researched articles and not merely be a duplication of the first few pages of Google.
Consensus is wonderful, but it must be informed consensus. Once upon a time there was consensus that earth was flat.
I apologize if I have offended anyone, but it seems to me Wikepedia is not well served when a comment is not informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John williams 7 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, as an aside, I would counsel the article author to tone down the rhetoric in this discussion, as well as the sheer volume of postings. None of this is helping your cause. Indeed, I'm generally inclined to consider any situation in which an enormous amount of justification regarding notability is required to be a situation in which notability probably doesn't exist. I don't make a final judgment based on that, but that is an impression that exists. Just a thought! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Gaming the System and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Arbitration request has been filed in this matter. I feel as a good citizen it is my duty to give the arbitation committee an opportunity to preserve the integrity of Wikepedia. Other than privacy matters that can not be discussed here, the nominator has removed the links that disprove his point and replaced it with another link to prove his point.I have nothing to gain from this article, so I will not be posting here anymore. AS a side note, I have never claimed that this person was notable as an author. This person is notable because o his lifetime of inventions, product development and successfully commercializing of the inventions.
I encourage all to go to [8] and see for youself that the premise behind deletion that 'anyone can register a patent' is blatantly false. Patents are not registered, they are granted after a long complex process documented on the site. I also encourage all to use PAIR system on USPTO site to understand the long arduous process of 7 years for the grant of the patent in question.
I also encourage all to review Wikipedia:Gaming the system and Wikipedia:Notability (people) I would also encorage all who bother to read the two guidelines to go to the history page of this article and see for yourself how the system has been gamed, the links that show the te premise behind deletion is false have been vandalized and how the process has been abused.
Please also see how this is the second attempt by this person to delete this article, see for yourself and make your own judgement
Please also visit Revision history of Radiation monitoring in power plants, an article I had just started. The article is nominated by the same person for deletion before I even had a chance to work on it. Same pattern on the part of this person as he did Nigam Arora article by nominating it for speedy deletion when I had just started on it.
I also encourage all to visit Template:Cite news, judge for youself that ALL Essential parameters OF THE GUIDELINE HAVE BEEN MET, and an earlier comment on this page is gaming the system by falsely stating the policy. Wikipedia:Gaming the system provides a good example that parallels what is happening on this page.
In any case Wikepedians, this is good bye for now. I will no longer be posting on this page or on Wikepedia. I came to Wikepedia to help better the Wikepedia, not to engage in GAMING the SYSTEM, not for warfare, not to be abused and certainly not to give this one particular person opportunities to obssessively use Wikepedia to take revenge for what happened between him and me in real life. This person has been on Wikepedia for a while and is good at gaming the systems and bringing his buddies to back him. I have no reason to copy the behavior. My response is -- good bye.
My parting suggestion is to please be informed before commenting and also look up the paper media, for example look at INC. magazines Dec 1987. Dec 1988 and Dec 1989 issues to see rankings of Arora's companies. Please understand that GOOGLE COVERAGE BEFORE ABOUT 2002 IS VERY SPARSE.
Wikipedians, it is a bigger question of integrity of Wikepedia . It is up to you to chose between supporting gaming the system for personal revenge or supporting the best interest of Wikepedia; to choose between following the published policies of Wikepedia such as the one on Template:Cite news as well as Wikipedia:Notability (people) , and voting on this page or other pages by being bamboozled by a master gamesman such as the case here regarding the patent.
Consensus is wonderful as long as it is informed and not manipulated.
Debate is yours. I will not be here.
THanks to those who helped and apologies if I did anything wrong. I am a straight forward person and hate manipuation with a passion. Since I have nothing to gain by staying here to fight manipulation, I do not belong here.
Good Bye,
--John williams 7 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)John Williams[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parochial theory advocated by one famous perpetual motion enthusiast: Thomas E. Bearden. Recognition of this idea independent of Mr. Bearden has not been forthcoming. The article itself is essentially a soapbox for these ideas. Additionally, every verifiable point about this idea is already included in his biographical article. Since there is no useful text that needs to be merged, I submit that deleting this article is all that is needed. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, per WP:CRYSTAL, little significant reliable information on the album. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The prod was contested. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this album has not been officially announced by Kanye's record company and some information that can be presented will be classified as speculation. But much of this is fact: it's a known fact that he did state he was planning on releasing the album in June 2009, it's a known fact that he did return to the studio on January 4th, it's a known fact that Drake and Travis Barker said he was working on the album at the time and could not appear at the Grammys, and it's a known fact that he is currently working on the album in Hawaii with No I.D. and Big Sean. This is all proven through the references provided. We know that the title "Good Ass Job" is speculation, and I plan on reverting it to just "Kanye West's 5th Studio Album". Some other statements such as the Nicki Minaj and Rick Ross rumors are indeed just speculation, and I will remove them from the article. Otherwise, considering the WP:CRYSTAL policy, this album IS notable, due to the millions of Kanye West fans who wish to learn more about the album, and can use Wikipedia for this information if this article is kept intact. The album is for a fact going to be released, barring some sort of freak accident; although a 2010 release date is speculation, it is more than likely that the album will be released this year. If this article still needs to be revised so that it may remain on Wikipedia, I hope that those who are pushing for a deletion can help to edit the article to make it appropriate for Wikipedia, so that our visitors who are interested in visiting Kanye West's page looking for recent news on him may learn of this upcoming album. PittPanthers93 (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2010 (EST)
Savidan 21:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice M. Findlay, for an article by the same creator, written in the same vein, with the same problems. Here also there is not even a hint of the person passing WP:PROF or WP:N, with the same obfuscation--for instance, in the further reading section, the suggestion that the book by Terrence Craig will contain lots of useful information about Carder. What do we find? A self-published book of Carder's is listed in the bibliography. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Person fails WP:PROF. There is no evidence of her having had a widespread influence in her field; in fact, I cannot find evidence that she is notable via WP:N in the first place. The bibliography/references looks convincing, but consider, for instance, the link to Lisa Joy Pruitt's book in the "further reading" section: a search in that book for "findlay" reveals this, which is nothing--it only mentions in its bibliography a 10-page article she wrote for the American Baptist Quarterly. Look carefully at this article, and you'll see there is no notability here. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced sub-stub dictionary definition, no sources. Term doesn't seem to be widely used. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 06:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without comment. Prod said, "Only sources are facebook and youtube, no secondary sources." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 06:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without comment. Prod said, "Sources are blogs, facebook and youtube. No secondary sources." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only has two facts so should be merged into 1888 yutsi (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Written like a 5 year olds book report. yutsi (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pontificalibus (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rklawton raises some pretty good points, but the weight of consensus leans towards deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced WP:BLP, likely autobiography by Abolicionista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see [12]). Guy (Help!) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a manual yutsi (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record label: no third party references establish notability and used only to self-release material by one act. Fails WP:CORP. I42 (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. http://www.ibizastudio.com/includes/biography.inc.php Ronhjones (Talk) 00:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism of a user-made website, POV, bad format, etc. yutsi (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to In These Black Days. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 02:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject matter is covered at In These Black Days, this page adds no real useful information. No other ITBD splits have their own page. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded by author after two prods. I endorsed. WP:HAMMER. Shadowjams (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is a reliable source used to verify some of the article. It also seems clear that as a member representative of a majorinternational organization this group is notable. JodyB talk 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. 2 hits in gnews [15]. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily Deleted under G7 SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non notable company. Speedy removed by new editor after the original creator warned about removing speedy tag. Google has 36 hits for this company, none that show any notability noq (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The sources listed do not present the substantial independent coverage required to establich notability, and the delete arguments are convincing. JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor political party. No reliable third-party sources are included in the article, and I was unable to find significant coverage in any such sources when searching using Google. Notably, Google News comes up with nothing at all. Thus I contend that this party fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Pfainuk talk 16:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite its name, this is a training camp for just for Indian students. Not obviously notable. The equivalent math camp will almost certainly get deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India at the International Mathematical Olympiad. There isn't much encyclopedic material here. The camp schedule etc. changes from year to year, I'm sure. Pcap ping 16:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many issues, would need a fundamental rewrite. No references provided. Bit of an advert -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a minor supervillain with only one major appearance and two cameos. Joe Chill (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Betting exchange. to Betting exchange, per Col Warden. wedelete copyvio from the active encyclopedia, but not from the history unless there is a complain DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No attempt at sourcing. Reliable sources are unlikely to exist. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 09:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even find anything on this, let alone RSs. Ipatrol (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased single from an unreleased album. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Lacks references to 3rd party sources. No indication that this song meets WP:NSONGS. Might be notable once it charts but not today. Contested redirect. RadioFan (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been around for four years but appears to be WP:OR, or at best a personal essay on the subject. If the subject is genuinely significant then it needs a complete rewrite to make it compliant with policy and to remove the original research elements such as citing the "early thought leaders" to their own Google sites. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO - no info found in reliable sources - Addionne (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, apparently meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR, so people say. An assembler, and for Coleco Adam too? Now there's a blast from the past. Things just ain't like what they used to be, thankfully. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Unreferenced. Pcap ping 09:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly non-notable window manager. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Psychonaut (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Nominator has "voted" to keep and there are no outstanding delete "votes". Eluchil404 (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2010 (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)) . |
Aparently non-notable window manager. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Notability/primarysources tags have been languishing on the article for months. Psychonaut (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There are numerous sources found through a quick nexis search. We will keep and clean it. JodyB talk 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a biography that appears to be well sourced but in fact is largely promotional and many of the sources (e.g. [41]) do not even mention the subject. It is autobiographical by Charlesadeogunphillips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose only contributions are to this, an article on his company Charles Anthony (Lawyers) LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (G11'd) and an article on his father. Google finds fewer than 100 unique pages and almost all of them appear to be directory pages, often containing largely the same text though not obviously mirrors (so independently submitted). The term "internationally renowned genocide and war crimes prosecutor" is present in all such cases. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 21 February 2010 (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 result was No consensus. This can be revisited if/when the larger issue is resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit [42]. those wanting to keep, provide actual evidence of significant coverage. simply voting keep is insufficient. LibStar (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep all but redirect/merge some. There seems to be some discrepancy regarding which are notable enough for stand alone articles and which are not, that can be discussed on the individual character's talk pages. Clearly, there is no consensus to delete these. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since people in this [44] are complaining that not enough characters are being nominated I figured I would bunch them together and start nominating groups. Non-notable GIJoe characters:
None of them have any real coverage except for plot info from comics. Most of them are barely more then a stub. Before people complain, yes I know there are tons of bad GIJoe articles out there. Yes I think they all need to be dealt with. Yes I am working my way alphabetically through Category:G.I._Joe_characters. None of that is a reason to keep, please avoid these arguments. Thank you. Ridernyc (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, the two websites count as providing significant independent coverage, but they do not, in my opinion, meet WP:RS. I support their use as sources in the articles because I have personally always found them to be accurate and reliable, but they have little value in an AFD debate.
The third source, the book, meets all three criteria (significant coverage, independent, reliable), but WP:N also states that "Multiple sources are generally expected," so we're not out of the woods yet. It comes down to community consensus: if an article has one source that meets RS and two that do not, do we keep it or don't we? I myself am not sure. Of course, none of the articles under discussion here use this book as a source; I myself no longer have access to it, but if someone who does could add references to these articles, that would go a long way towards establishing notability.
However, we may be able to avoid the issue altogether, because those three sources are not the only sources out there.
James DeSimone has authored several guides to G.I. Joe figures that bear looking at, and Tomart Publications has also put a few: Tomarts Encyclopedia & Price Guide to Action Figure Collectibles, Vol. 1: A-Team Thru G.I.Joe and Tomart's Price Guide to G.I. Joe Collectibles. There is also the Complete Encyclopedia to G.I. Joe, but I understand that it deals mostly with 12-inch Joes. I do not have access to any of these, so maybe someone who does could tell use if they have any use here?
A more character-oriented work, as opposed to toy-oriented, is Pablo Hidalgo's G.I. Joe Vs. Cobra: The Essential Guide. Again, I haven't read it, and I don't know how comprehensive it is, but at least it should help us with the most well-known characters.
If anyone knows of any other sources, please post them.
I've put a lot of work into these articles, so naturally I hope they get kept. However, I realize that that may not happen. Perhaps the most likely outcome is a compromise, something like what happened with the Pokemon articles: keep the most significant, like Jigglypuff and Pikachu, or Snake-Eyes, Scarlett, Duke and the other big-shots in the case of G.I. Joe, and merge the others into a list. If we go that route, it should be more than what currently exists at List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. It should be something more like what exists at List of Pokémon (1–20), with a brief description of each character. Cerebellum (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Film is not notable, with only one verifiable and reliable source which really isn't informative.
This article was created by the same editor who created an article on another movie by the same director so clearly using Wikipedia to promote the small film. Bidgee (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing about this "movie" is two YouTube videos but I've not found anything to say that this is fact (IE: Not a HOAX). Even if this movie is fact I would hardly see it being notable since there is no press (news articles), and even the external link in the article fails to show it (the film).
At this stage the article is unsourced with no verifiable or reliable sources and would be deemed it as promotional. Bidgee (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has barely any content and it is completely unsourced. Its subject is a football club that has never reached a national level of competition in England. – PeeJay 12:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page, which is sourced but incomplete and covers the same club:
The result was Keep. No reason for deletion is presented in the nomination or the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for speedy deletion, however I'm unclear as to whether it is notable enough to satisfy CSD A7. Taking here for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. After reading through all of the arguments it's pretty clear that there is a consensus for deletion. No one is questioning the notability of the topic, but there are a nexus of concerns that led most who commented to support deletion. The central worry is that, given the lack of real-world definition for the term "war on terrorism," the scope of this article is difficult or impossible to define. Delete !voters argue that this has led (and will continue to lead) to a coatrack type article with a significant amount of material that would constitute original research since independent reliable sources do not establish its relationship to the ill-defined term "war on terror." This is certainly a valid concern given our policies, it was articulated to greater or lesser degrees by a super-majority of editors who commented here, and it was not really addressed directly by most of those who support keeping the article (indeed several ignored it completely). Given the discussion I believe deletion is the only outcome at this time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination for IP. There seems to be a mini-AfD on the article's talk page. I abstain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrKIA11 (talk • contribs)
(edit conflict)World wars were actual wars, though. If this article is to be kept, then what is the definition of WoT that would be used and what would be listed as a WoT casualty? By some definition of WoT, all operations labeled as counter-terrorist (and maybe attacks labeled as terrorist?) since 9/11 and until the end of time are included... See the mess of this concept? All we seem to do here is, pretty much, replicate Bush POV, which is actually not supported by reliable sources.--79.167.189.239 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another .NET CMS, which seems to fail WP:GNG. Pcap ping 09:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just think this is not allowed. Rabbit67890 (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is clear, and if this decision is inconsistent with that for Kohana, that is the way AfD works. I looked at the last source added by Ekerazha to see if it might justify a last-minute reprieve to relisting; but it only lists Yii among over 100 applications nominated for awards. JohnCD (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yii Framework was deleted twice for the lack of notability. Same problem here: yet another web php framework. Peni (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Text about Yii in the php
|
---|
architect magazine source |
Yii: Flex Your Flash by Jeff Winesett
Adding a little Flash to applications is a common approach web developers take as they strive to meet today’s buzzword compliance. Maximizing interoperability and data exchange by leveraging web Services to allow application-to-application communication has revolutionized the Web business model. It’s hard to imagine the Internet today without the Web service APIs of, among many others, Google, Yahoo and Amazon. This article shows how to easily accomplish both of these modern Web development demands by using the extremely powerful and light-weight PHP framework, Yii. |
The arguments presented by Ekerazha for retaining the article violate Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, such as WP:GOOGLEHITS. If none of the Google hits for Yii are reliable sources, none of them can be used to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (web). The argument for keeping Yii because Kohana was not deleted is invalid per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; furthermore, the AfD for Kohana was closed as "no consensus" which means that the article can be renominated later if notability concerns have not been rectified. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to WWE SmackDown. JForget 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pure original research, and if it is a relevant term why is it limited to Unreal Tournament from 2004? It's been tagged for a while, but no improvements. Searching for the term isn't particularly fruitful. Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per A9 by Tbsdy lives. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable: The album was never officially released, and the band's own article, Maniac Spider Trash, has just been deleted by AfD as non-notable - -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website advertising for-profit educational institutions 2 says you, says two 03:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Admittedly it is difficult to search for a chat client called "IRC" (really, that's what it is called) but try as I might I'm not finding anything which would indicate that this meets our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @136 · 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any third-party sources outside of livejournal, flickr and the like. I don't see anything suggesting that this convention meets the General Notability Guideline. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I after reading the General Notability Guideline and the WP:OSE, I still don't see how the article does not meet the standards of wikipedia. I suggest then more specific examples be posted to address the issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacada1 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article purports to be about fresh fish. It is actually about curing food, and is a copy/paste from here and possibly Curing (food preservation) --Epipelagic (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nom. tedder (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not meet the guidelines for notability set forth in WP: Notability. It has never been featured beyond local publications and has never. for example, been on the U.S News Top Schools list. I feel a perfect example of what I am referring to can be found on the Article's talk page, where a student or alumni refers to how humorous stories from a teacher should be added to the article. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) an article must be written about in Secondary sources not sponsored by the organization itself. A quick search on Google indicates that there has been no major articles in credible secondary sources about the School. Therefore, I believe it is a candidate for deletion. 226Trident (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress who was in one straight-to-video movie and had a bit part on a single episode of Ugly Betty. WP:ENT requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows," etc., which this actress has not had. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @135 · 02:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable GIJoe character action figure. Ridernyc (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, the two websites count as providing significant independent coverage, but they do not, in my opinion, meet WP:RS. I support their use as sources in the articles because I have personally always found them to be accurate and reliable, but they have little value in an AFD debate.
The third source, the book, meets all three criteria (significant coverage, independent, reliable), but WP:N also states that "Multiple sources are generally expected," so we're not out of the woods yet. It comes down to community consensus: if an article has one source that meets RS and two that do not, do we keep it or don't we? I myself am not sure. Of course, none of the articles under discussion here use this book as a source; I myself no longer have access to it, but if someone who does could add references to these articles, that would go a long way towards establishing notability.
However, we may be able to avoid the issue altogether, because those three sources are not the only sources out there.
James DeSimone has authored several guides to G.I. Joe figures that bear looking at, and Tomart Publications has also put a few: Tomarts Encyclopedia & Price Guide to Action Figure Collectibles, Vol. 1: A-Team Thru G.I.Joe and Tomart's Price Guide to G.I. Joe Collectibles. There is also the Complete Encyclopedia to G.I. Joe, but I understand that it deals mostly with 12-inch Joes. I do not have access to any of these, so maybe someone who does could tell use if they have any use here?
A more character-oriented work, as opposed to toy-oriented, is Pablo Hidalgo's G.I. Joe Vs. Cobra: The Essential Guide. Again, I haven't read it, and I don't know how comprehensive it is, but at least it should help us with the most well-known characters.
If anyone knows of any other sources, please post them.
I've put a lot of work into these articles, so naturally I hope they get kept. However, I realize that that may not happen. Perhaps the most likely outcome is a compromise, something like what happened with the Pokemon articles: keep the most significant, like Jigglypuff and Pikachu, or Snake-Eyes, Scarlett, Duke and the other big-shots in the case of G.I. Joe, and merge the others into a list. If we go that route, it should be more than what currently exists at List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. It should be something more like what exists at List of Pokémon (1–20), with a brief description of each character.
(Reposted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbecue (G.I. Joe)) Cerebellum (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a "beer cocktail" where you..... it's a boilermaker except it's flavored vodka. There are no citations or sources, or references, and googling for it is just a list of tragedies involving thyroid cancer. Even adding the word beer to that search doesn't cheer it up. What I haven't seen though is a reference to this drink. Shadowjams (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In fact googling it in quotes, followed by either drink, cocktail, or beer, gets zero hits. MATThematical (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Sources. Google has nothing. Could be a Hoax. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 03:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 14:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Received only a brief flurry of coverage in September 2008. There is literally no coverage after that point, indicating that the site did not establish any long-term notability at all. There was a chunk of sources dug up in the 2nd AFD, but most of them were deemed either dubious, dated from September 2008 or both. Yes, I know this is the 3rd nomination (the "second" one was due to a twinkle glitch and doesn't count), but my points still stand. The site has utterly failed to establish long term notability, as literally no one paid any form of media attention to it after a brief coverage. Notability is not temporary, but if literally every source is from the same super-narrow swath, then it's hard to argue that it was really notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I fail to see what new information has come about that would prove lack of notability from the last nomination 7 months ago. Perhaps if it receives no more coverage in several years that would be an argument to bring up the new deletion, but 7 months seems kind of small to me. If an athlete is world champion and then receives no coverage afterwards does that mean he is no longer notable. Can you please refer me to the section of WP:Notable where continued coverage is required, maybe its something specific to websites that I missed. MATThematical (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't see any reason why something, once notable, ceases to be so because it is no longer newsworthy. By that rule huge numbers of historical entries would be deleted. Added to which the act of deleting would make the subject notable again... Webmink (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the list of WP:Articles for deletion/Deletionpedia (3rd nomination)'s potential sources, I just found this 20.10.2009 article in PC-Welt (German PC World): [64] (translation). Looks like the subject passes WP:WEB after all. — Rankiri (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Hey neckbeards, the site is referenced 13 times here on wiki. Better start a discussion and delete them all! Hurry![reply]
Unsourced computer parts website, not an OEM and possibly going out of business. MBisanz talk
01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
1. MDisanz stated that it is "unsourced computer parts website, not an OEM and possibly going out of business."
2. Mattg82 said "Almost a speedy. An unreferenced advert, with no encyclopedic value."
3. Boing! said "The company does appear to be genuine, and I've found a few references " ---Yes, it is totally genuine. Thank you for doing some research to at least chime in on this in a fair and balanced manner. We really appreciate your time on this and look forward to any help that you can provide.
4. Haakon said "obvious spam." ---Sorry, not spam at all at least from our prospective. Hakkon, do you participate in the vintage computer hobby? Do you own an Apple2? Do you have knowledge about this particular hobby of vintage computing yourself? I would love to agree with your comment on this subject matter, but I simply have to disagree. There are people of the community that apprecitae a wiki article and dont find it is not spam like at all.
We am not attacking anyone here and we dont take anything at all personal. We do however want to be heard and feel that by responding to comments directly will help get all of the issues corrected. Our goal here is to be in full compliance with all of your rules. Please help us in achieving this goal.
Amart79196 (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:CSD#G3 and WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Author asserts this is an original theory; OR. - Philippe 01:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]