The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This crash is not notable enough to warrant an article. It is just one more of thousands of instances of light aircraft crashing in poor weather. There has been no significant coverage, just a few news reports, which even in South Africa appear to have been identical in their wording. It does not meet WP:GNG, fails under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, and does not meet WP:AIRCRASH either. It has been suggested elsewhere that notability might have been conferred by the number of deaths, but I do not agree - nowhere is it stated that number of deaths is an inclusion criterion. YSSYguy (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Request, If the result of this AFD is to delete, I would like to have the content of the article "sandboxed" under my user page as I intend to create an article for Italtile in the near future - which would be the "natural" home for the information about this incident. I'm not sure how such a move to userspace is done so I would apreciate some advice/assistance. Roger (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A claim, of sorts, of notability, so probably not eligable for CSD-A7, but concerns about the credibility of said "notability". Her IMDB page gives a single credit, for the made for TV movie "Sharktopus" in which she played the part "Bikini Girl with Bum". Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If someone wants to propose a rename, be my guest. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page was discussed here, but nothing came of it. This page is entirely based on subjective conjecture. Who is to say which record is "unbreakable" and which is not? Who "considers" which record unbreakable? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the general notability guideline. Not widely established concept beyond a few none notable academics. Mootros (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the general notability guideline. Not widely established concept beyond a few none notable academics. Mootros (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical article. Does not seem to satisfy WP:PEOPLE, but also does not seem to qualify for CSD#A7. References are listed (some reliable), but they do not seem to assert enough notability for the subject. Most sources mention how subject has raised funds, althought most of the article is original research and unencyclopedic. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources could be found. — anndelion ※ 22:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting. Last AFD closed as no consensus; only keep arguments presented were WP:ITSNOTABLE, with one person digging up a one-sentence mention in Billboard and calling it sufficient. Besides one album on a notable label, I see nothing else at all that makes the band meet WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The lack of citations to any secondary sources reflecting this concept gives strong support to the majority's contention that it is original research. Wikipedia is not in the business of inventing concepts. The minority of "keep" opinions does not convincingly address this problem. Sandstein 05:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) No such concept exists - it's been invented by Wikipedia • (2) unreferenced for 4 years • (3) contains original research written in essay form • (4) no reliable sources use this term • (5) results of previous delete debate ignored DionysosProteus (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable, unaccredited seminary ran from Robert O'Block's home in Florida (Clearwater now, formally New Port Richey, Florida). Since 1968, O'Block appears to have been running this and several other "schools" and groups accused of being degree mills. For example, he runs groups that sell accreditation and credentials, including the Society for the Cure of Souls, the American Association of Integrative Medicine (AAIM) Accreditation Commission and sells certificates from American Board of Forensic Counselors. A user previously added these groups and others to the article as associations of the seminary. The webpage warns the degrees/credentials are only valid for "religious" use. No surprise, but only heads of other unaccredited schools claim to have degrees from this seminary.
Sole reference is the School Catalog/webpage hosted by the free webhost Angelfire.com (view its history on archive.org). Nothing notable enough for this seminary/home to meet WP:ORG. No sources added in five years. Don't confuse this business with similiar sounding and legitimate schools in New York and Dallas. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Carlos Antonio Meléndez. Closing something I nominated is IAR, but I think in this case there's agreement that I missed an obvious redirect and "just do the right thing" trumps. joe deckertalk to me 21:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N, WP:V -- Can't find reliable, secondary sources to establish the existence or notability of this former football coach. Might've PROD'd it, but the complexity of searching on multipart abbreviated names plus the language barrier leaves me greater concern that I've simply missed the appropriate sourcing. joe deckertalk to me 20:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn request. Favonian (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no sources and no reliable sources could be found in news or Google search, prod has been removed by ip Rmzadeh ► 19:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn request. Favonian (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article lacks any sources and no reliable sources could be found in google hits or news, prod removed by ip Rmzadeh ► 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn request. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no sources and no reliable sources could be found in news or Google search, prod has been removed by ip Rmzadeh ► 19:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article failed WP:CSD, and yet there have been no attempts to improve it since. Currently, it conflicts with the following policies: WP:SOAP, WP:COI, WP:RESUME, and WP:N. It appears self-promotional, and was most likely written by the subject. Efforts have been made to identify news sources: [8]. The guest appearances on TV may be credible claims, but appear temporary and do not seem to have been the subject of any significant coverage. Mephistophelian † 18:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a (albeit comprehensive) directory filled with excessive detail about the episodes (WP:CRUFT), which Wikipedia is not. There don't appear to be non-primary reliable sources for any of the information. RJaguar3 | u | t 17:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:SYN (fans put together the production numbers of the episodes), WP:EPISODE (there is no reliably sourced commentary on the individual episodes apart from what we can say about episodes of the show generally), and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (which this article appears to be, although it does seem to be useful, but that is not an argument to keep). RJaguar3 | u | t 17:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When reviewing this article for DYK, I noticed that it is not clear how this 19th century amateur botanist and pastor is notable per WP:BIO or WP:PROF. The sources cited are primary, self-published and/or passing mentions, and his scientific work seems to be of strictly local significance. I can't immediately find a reliable secondary source discussing this person in any depth. Sandstein 17:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Search results, herbarium specimens collected by Rev William Hunt ... (help). previous searches. Rev William Hunt Painter. Rev William Hunt Painter ( 16/7/1835 - 12/10/1910). Search results. Search results, herbarium specimens ...
herbariaunited.org/specimensearch/?collector=William... - Cached
Carrite (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 09:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List not useful as it is terribly incomplete despite having been around for more than 2 years. Per first nomination, at best it would become a linkfarm.
Note - the link to the previous AfD isn't showing up the way I thought it would. It is located here.PKT(alk) 16:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability requirements. Two airplanes bumped into each other. Contrary to what the popular news media would like you to think, this is not an unusual occurence. There were no deaths, culpability is irrelevant, and while some passengers may have been a bit inconvenienced there are no long-term effects of this incident worth mentioning. The incident is listed already at Air France accidents and incidents (scroll down to the very bottom). Fails the enduring notability requirement of WP:EVENT (see section "Inclusion criteria"). Also see WP:AIRCRASH, though it's just an essay. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporation or organization. (Presumably fake and/or a degree mill, but that's a separate point from its complete lack of notability.) GNews and GNews Archive provide no results for "Morpheus Global University" or variants, and hits for its alleged former name of "South Asia University" are either spurious or have to do with South Asian University, an unrelated and legitimate venture. All in all, I can't find a single reliable source that would confirm even the existence of Morpheus Global University, let alone point to its notability for encyclopedic purposes.
This nomination was prompted by User:Le Deluge's remarks here at Wikipedia talk:Articles for Deletion; he's done a bit more poking around into the question of the legitimacy and authenticity of the entity (which, again, is a separate question from its complete non-notability). Glenfarclas (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, especially deserves the axe if it's fake.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The people who want to keep this as a separate article seem to be those with a conflict of interest. Consensus is that any content related to this topic should ba at Strong gravity, and written by people who do not have a personal interest in the matter. Sandstein 05:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article violates WP:OR and WP:COI. Attempts to redirect the article title to a new article Strong gravity have been disputed by w:User:fedosin, whose own theories are expounded at length in the current state of the article. Some relevant discussions of this topic elsewhere:
I realize that an AfD is not the way to request a simple re-direct, and I am requesting more than a re-direct. I think this article should in fact be deleted; it is full of material that does not belong in Wikipedia. betsythedevine (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By your own words this authors just not fringe and so references to their papers are suitable. Your words about “mutually-contradictory dimensional analyses” mostly addressed to my data in the article and are wrong. Reference to Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter was done only in order to explain how is it possible to think about strong gravity in simple and natural way. I may be give more information about my own vision and applications of strong gravitational constant. But it was only because I well know the question in my own direction of investigation. I am sure other authors can add their thoughts and ideas about their applications of strong gravitational constant, or may be it could be done other users better then me.Fedosin (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Fedosin (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I'm not taking into account the two first "delete" opinions, as they were written prior to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's complete rewrite. A merger can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 20:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult one. I think that might fails our notability guidelines and minimum requirement for sourcing. IQinn (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Body of article is a list of languages, with some commentary on each. It is impractical to have a discussion of every language in the world on this page. It is not certain whether "tense-aspect-mood" is an established concept in the study of grammar. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per G12. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adevertisement Oddbodz (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sort of between keep and no consensus here, but it seems like consensus is leaning toward Herman meeting GNG . /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSPORTS. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources could be found (only coverage is as a line in a statistical database). No results from Google Books or Google News archive, only 9 from regular Google. Note: I am aware that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are many similar articles that should IMO also be deleted (and there are many hed coaches who are notable and do deserve an article). I am not making this a mass nomination because often for some of the people included, some other, unexpected source of notability is found. Each coach should be considered separately, no matter how tedious this may be. Fram (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In 1914, the Franklin & Marshall football team, with Herman playing halfback, compiled a 6–2 record and defeated Penn, at the time considered one of the "Big Four" of college football,[n 1] by a score of 10–0.[6][7] In 1915, the team again compiled a 6–2 record and outscored opponents by cumulative score of 188 to 43.[8] With Herman playing fullback, Franklin & Marshall lost to Penn by a score of 10–6 in 1915, but the Boston Globe praised the effort of the Franklin & Marshall squad: "The University of Pennsylvania football team in its third game of the season beat Franklin and Marshall today, 10 to 6, in one of the best battles seen here in years. Much praise is due the visitors from Lancaster, for during the entire game they fought with a snap and vim that at times had the Red and Blue eleven bewildered."[9]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains a lot of in-universe information, and no real coverage to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 13:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No closing rationale can give justice to the bizarreness of both the article and this discussion, so, just to summarize: apart from the subject himself and his WP:SPA colleagues, whose WP:TLDR walls of text I have skipped over, almost all agree that the subject is not notable and that the content fails nearly every policy in the book, as explained by Agricola44. Sandstein 06:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. No referenced assertion of notability, sources are subject's Web site or VDM publshing imprints, Google Scholar mostly turns up a WWI-era pediatrician who is not this person.--Wtshymanski (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC)
Before progressing to the main course, a note on the methodology being employed in this charade – and yes, a charade it certainly is. First, we have a notice to remove, with language describing how anybody can take it down provided an explanation is offered. Which was done, whereat a new remove tag replaces the original, less the information re removal. So apparently there’s ‘removal’, and then there’s ‘Removal’. Right. So there may be some fancy and Wiki-correct maneuvering here; but to an intelligent observer it smacks of unprofessionalism. The first remark in my defense was also abreast of the rules, yes, let’s admit that straight up. Let’s also understand the guy is no fool and you’ve royally pissed him off on account of one little unnoticed factoid: your provocation was thrice his error, so don’t be too supercilious with your rules. In fact, you’d best tread lightly. Enough said for intelligent folk, K? Third, I am dumbstruck by the clubby atmosphere on this page. You act like you can half talk as if in a public forum and half muddle with cant specific to some Wiki potentates presuming themselves beyond accountability, to wit—
"Spam [which is what in this instance?]”, though limited, and a life's share of original research [true enough and it’s not over by any means]. The references are used to support the essay so there's no point following them [in addition to supporting the thematics they support specific statements of fact calling for references], and while i didn't read the bibliography it seems to be the same [boy are you lame]. No news, no books, no scholar, and six pages of dry search hits [and where did the Wiki reliance on politeness disappear to?]. But copyvio [and this cant refers to what, precisely?] was just grand."
Well, dear Sir, methinks your history may speak for itself in this instance as in another recent one:
[Line deleted. Please do not insert statements and sign them with another editor's username]
BTW, real scholars go to the effort of doing actual research. And finally, the uncanny presumptions of seeming bullies – What do Wiki rules suggest about presuming a ‘hoax’ prior to the facts, or a ‘little philosopher’ looking for a stage…isn’t such grandiosity getting a little ahead of the game, dear boys? You dudes need to catch your breath.
We progress without salad to the entrée…(French style, salad is the last paragraph). True to my style I speak hereafter in the third person.
So you required a full year to discover the obvious. Congratulations. Great job one and all. Yes, your suspicion is correct, Mr. Man 1951 IS Charles S. Herrman. And perhaps you now require to understand why your puritan morality is getting in the way of a scholar’s efforts and possibly also muddying Mr. Wale's ultimate objectives.
The object of an encyclopedia, if we must be reminded, is to disseminate accurate information of relevance to presupposed interested parties, be they the public or any specialized subsection thereof (academics, politicians, government officials, what have you). In the present instance we have several significant contributions from a theorist in as many separate fields. Before we go further down this path, please consider how many others of whom the same might be said. How many in any encyclopedia have accomplished so much? And you deem this present author as other than notable? You could best begin by explaining yourselves with far greater credibility.
Let's get straight a piece of relevant logic. The credibility of an encyclopedic entry has little if any relation to the number of degrees or journal articles of the writer, but instead and primarily of the presence and quality of references and citations. But more even than those (which of course are not unimportant!) the evidence of your own lights. The entry under Charles S. Herrman is not so recondite that intelligent folks can't reasonably follow along. It isn't so offbeat or off-putting that a scholar or academic can't appreciate wherein the content is novel, worthwhile or otherwise. The only tag raised on the page that made any superficial sense was thus the request for an expert in the area. But a question: Why was that necessary? Its relevance lies not as to whether the content or source is 'notable' but whether it is itself a significant contribution in the relevant field of scholarly study. We know from experience that intelligent people once introduced to Mr. Herrman's numerous contributions have no trouble understanding that these contributions are weighty, regardless whether others have partially contributed to their existence (where Mr. Herrman has been accountable and transparent, to the point of defending ‘hard’ academic scholars against the publicity-seeking ‘soft’ scholars in which category he places himself, with the implication that soft scholars have a higher level of stewardship duty).
For you to challenge the authority of Mr. Herrman as if he could not possibly have significant material of interest to millions of good people, indicates less a dearth of sources than a dearth of responsible intelligence. But then, we live in a society where few accept the slightest accountability for assessing anything but self-interest. We have come to expect outside authorities to warrant all facts and settle all disputes, so that whatever finally crosses our transom shall never require the slightest lifting of a finger of our mental muscle. We have enough effort only to reach for the rubber stamp. Just to be completely hypocritical, we proceed to take all or most of the credit! Is it really up to Charles Herrman to cough up all of your desired justifications? Not less than half of what you are actually requiring (aside from or included in actual requests) should have come from inside your own minds had you but understood your true responsibilities. If you can’t come to the conclusion a commoner can attain to, what are you doing there apart from mending the tightness of the barbed wire in a mental prison-house?
People go to war over considerations upon the existence of God. We manage somehow not to fault folks for failing to adduce an authority acceptable to Wikipedia editors, and yet billions upon billions of people use their own lights to decide on these matters, never mind the godly foresight of Wikipedians. You have reduced me to a schoolmarm, at which I am uncomfortable because I am unaccustomed to treating adults as children. The Enlightenment found Kant shouting Sapere Aude! = dare to know. He might have added, ‘dare to challenge authority predicated upon your own lights’, and finally, this: ‘determine its validity likewise’. Reread that last part for good measure. The reason we are still in need of this lesson (oh, geez, the general idea was mentioned in the Charles S. Herrman article – for shame!) is that at present we are living as slaves to credentials of dubious validity and still we have yet to appreciate the elements for determining true authority in a truly respectful manner. You Wikipedians have a few things to learn, and you should start forthwith by rereading and rereading again Mr. Herrman!!
When Catherin Drinker Bowen wrote her biography of Franklin she titled it "The Most Dangerous Man in America." Perhaps we might say the same of Mr. Herrman. Because he is an independent scholar making the majority of academics look a tad brittle by comparison, he is truly a dangerous person who doubtless should be executed for his impudence at examining, explicating and disseminating truths others can hardly dream of without a whole lot of professional assistance. Mr. Herrman is a dangerous human being because he spotlights the failure of human beings to hold themselves accountable, individually or collectively. He has single-handedly created the undercarriage of much of the political science of offices and office-holding, and of the entirety of stewardship studies, to say nothing of the concepts of authority, prerogative, and the legal issues bearing upon each of these. Yes, others have addressed aspects of field, as for example Weber and recently Sennet. Only Herrman has tied them all together with intercalated principles and then demonstrated their practical applicability. And we are only just warming up! So for all that these anonymous editors refuse to countenance, we are graced with seven tags itemizing faults made to appear as if God's holy sanctimony were violated.
After a year in which the page was peaceably accepted, two Wikipedians, perhaps spurred by an outside source, failed to so much as consider the precedent established by thirty or more others having added to the page without complaint. One, as recently as December of 2010, at a time when the page was essentially complete, added over ten minor but necessary and helpful additions without once challenging anything, without asserting any god-given right to crusade against dangerous geniuses amongst us. In law this is all dealt with by precedent. Bear in mind that many an expert has surely passed over the Charles S. Herrman page, apparently without feeling any need to challenge it. Furthermore, there are a number of related technical sites that refer back to this one, and again, we can scarcely suppose no professionals or experts having been made aware, all without apparent challenge. Precedent speaks volumes as a modality of assent, credible even in its silence. For editors in a public forum such as Wikipedia to ignore that as if baseless is just not a credible claim. One naturally wonders if these editors fathom how perfectly awful this looks to many of sound judgment, who may well see a vendetta of unseemly proportion
Then an additional tag was placed atop the Biography section, declaring the absence of any sources or references. In point of fact, they were absent only because a moralizing loose cannon elected to remove them all himself! The rationale given was that the personal website to which they originally pointed could not be accepted as genuine (in the sense of authoritative). The first tag to be removed was apparently the one referencing Mr. Herrman's recommendation by Professor Hartshorne. Now here is a little fact that will shed much light on the process as a whole. That reference was to a digital image of a signed document, on the professor's personal stationary. It did not dawn on anyone that such a source is valid regardless where it is stationed (i.e. which server for whichever site – naturally the original is available to anyone who wishes to check it out). Furthermore, that personal website was employed not merely for convenience (though it was and remains that) but because it was in concordance with Wikipedia rules! What it did ultimately do, however, was to correctly suggest the identity of self and shadow, of Herrman and Mr. Mann (the translation from the German of the proper noun). Perhaps our high-minded encyclopedists are more concerned to fine-tune rules and exemplify them emblematically in test-cases than to assist scholars in properly utilizing a public forum by which to make them available to the broadest audience.
Here is the nub, in brief: A remarkable thinker considered as such by "the world's greatest living metaphysician" (Britannica, 15th ed.) is impliedly dangerous because symbolizing a failure to dutifully conform to practices that, however well-intentioned, are anachronistic in areas of significance. The requirement that we Google a scholar for peer-reviewed articles is the truest example of blind and thoughtless conformity such as Christ alluded to in the parable of the fisherman's request to attend his father's funeral. Herrman’s work is so astounding that a person of average lights can comprehend the significance of it never mind any expectable ignorance of the professional literature.
It was claimed that VDM is a vanity publisher. It is not. What is valid is the claim of an absence of peer review, economics governing the end result. The publisher was asked by Herrman to republish at a lower price especially for the American market. They are apparently as stubborn as certain Wikipedia editors. As for their imprint AlphaScript, these are titles taken from Wikipedia and are accordingly as credible as the source they have in common. Perhaps the editors are unaware of the Wikipedian copyright policy…perhaps they would argue that, rule or no, the practice is illegitimate. Fine, but while making your point, please be aware that others can make similar claims, somewhat after the fashion of these very remarks.
It was claimed that SSRN (Social Sciences Research Network) does not peer review. Again, correct. But what is the issue of such a complaint? The fact is this: solid authors, even of top-rated articles, cite SSRN working papers within their peer-reviewed publish articles. No, not always, of course, but sufficient that the blatant implication surrounding the claim is simply not valid. Mr. Herrman has been asked by experts requesting he send articles because the download from the site failed. He was asked permission from a major law publisher in India for reprint permission on a major SSRN piece (“Common Denominators in White Collar Crime”). He has received a compliment from a Ph.D. student asking him to finish the series on “Fundamentals of Methodology” because the first three had been so helpful, and that he wished the set would make for a text that he would be the first to purchase. Now seriously, must we record or digitize such comments in order to offer evidence for what an average intellect ought to comprehend with a small amount of effort? What is your problem? You are trying to impugn a notable scholar and theorist. How, pray tell, does that jibe with the stewardship of your office(s)?
Here is what should be demanded of the editorial staff at Wikipedia. The Charles S. Herrman page deserves 'protection' from future marauders. It deserves to be updated in its rating and deserves a very high rating indeed. An advocate for Mr. Herrman has wished it be known that the Charles S. Herrman page is the most impressive anywhere on Wikipedia! Surely there are others of like opinion. This page deserves to be given notable status if only to demonstrate that competent scholarship need not presuppose formal education or publishing, and certainly does not deserve what clearly is a vendetta. If it be true that Mr. Herrman has breached ethical norms, how about showing your hand and delivering the evidence? No evidence as to content has appeared; we have been treated to some Wikipedia norms that certainly seem solid when flowing from the lips, but a philosopher goes deeper and brings reservations to bear.
Salad
It is Mr. Herrman’s understanding that the founder of Wikipedia valued knowledge for its own sake, for its content, more than its source. Yes, sources require to be present as necessary or as reason may dictate. But in an open source medium where all add credibility to a page, how does that square with enforcing so much from the major contributors? I venture to say most errors and issues are the work of minor contributors, at least in my experience. If Mr. Wales values broadly informed input, I should think he can hardly ignore the logic of broadly credentialed major contributors. By that we obviously include independent scholars or the merest of ‘experts’ who bring credentials of a slightly different sort, and where, like any article, the readership bears a large responsibility for acknowledgment of quality or the lack thereof. Should he disagree, I certainly would enjoy hearing from him. In fact, here is a challenge. Show him these remarks side by side the complaints. Let the Emperor speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr man1951 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved here from my talk page -Guy)
Re Charles S. Herrman removal: You have now identified both identities, i.e., Dusty Shelf and Mr. Man 1951. BTW it appears that the language and attitude are improving, for which I offer my thanks. Pass it on...Mr man1951 (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again I am deleting my comment due to my misunderstanding of the material here. Hope that is OK.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, someone who actually came back and admitted a truth lol. Thanks Guy Macon for seeing we are not the same two people.
Another comment I made now deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you want Wtshymanksi to delete a page
because it will improve his stats and because deleting is FUN?
Deleted another comment per talk with Guy Macon.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment deleted by me.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted another comment.Istheleftright (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is all the grumbling about here? Mr. Herrman is quite notable, and in the very nature of what he is notable for, paradigmatics, he has already gotten a giant head start over everyone here. Not to toot his horn for him but when was the last time you all have bothered to do a looksee into the history of western culture, especially in its philosophic foundations (which underlies its subsequent scientific/mathematical ones, all of which were originally considered part and parcel of the self-same philosophic tradition, which is also still their constant guardian and reformer)? Yes Charles, it is me, the pupil of yours who ever-fails to control the structure of his sentences, both written and spoken, and who ever-exceeds you in eccentricity of expression wherever it happens to count against his written papers, yet has gotten A after A regardless, though often with your help. I write thusly to differentiate my writings from yours lest I awaken tomorrow with the odd feeling of being a sock.
Charles is a man who has earned quite a bit of respect from many whom I have witnessed first hand to be men who give respect not lightly at all, and this as far back as I have known him from back where I met him first, in Oklahoma City, my home town. I was constantly and still am constantly searching for the ultimate nature of reality (beyond the intimations of the obvious details we all commonly surmise with our astute five senses...), and in that process I have had to put up a sort of ever-evolving filter on my efforts so that my limited time and ability can wrest the most truth out of one lifetime for the greatest benefit, which happens to be an aesthetic benefit. In that process I spent many years reading voluminously in subjects most central to my interest, namely philosphy and psychology, religion, law, and economics. By Mr. Herrman's insistent persuasion I finally did finish four years of college with a 4.0, but didn't find the education that I received at UT to be worth nearly as much as the studies I had previously undertaken with Mr. Herrman personally, although the degree that formal studies at the university may endow one with would carry more weight when looking for a job. In the search for the beautiful and good truth that has been the actual philosophic tradition of the west since Socrates and some many before have shown it, I say in that grand and happy search that I have found no other man deserving of the notworthy and rarely applicable title "philosopher", either living or dead, if Mr. Herrman is not himself to be included in the top ten among them. But that perhaps should only be taken in the "light" in which it is best appreciated, which is my own light, the light of my own experience of the man and his work. I'll be damned if you can trot on his name and his work and say it is not noteworthy.
But my understanding of what makes Charles Herrman's work in philosophy "noteworthy" is not limited to my personal opinion. I did not make high marks in philosophy under some rather strict professors for four years at UT just flippantly offering my opinion, nor was my work unreadable to them, nor is Mr. Herrman's work (or other writing) "incoherent". Mr. Herrman's Paradigmatics fills a necessary and gaping void in so many areas besides pure philosophy precisely because it does so in philosophy itself. It is likely that after so many centuries of metaphysicians proclaiming all future philosophers' thoughts answering to their grand presentation of "how reality really is", that finally someone might actually make some progress in this particular area. It would not be unlikely that this area of progress in philosophy would be a very narrow road to walk, with very great ramifications if walked correctly. It would require a very exacting and detailed methodology. It would have to answer to all the history of philosophy, east and west, in a coherent manner. It would have to explain much within and beyond philosophy, to include why its own existence as the preferred method of explanation took so long to come about. It would also have to have some hard-hitting practical applications, immediately, both in the hard and softer sciences. Mr. Herrman's work does all of this and he has already made clear just how he has done this in many sources which were disconnected rather unethically from his entry to Wikipedia. This should be redressed.
Ranging from work in pure metaphysics and "metalogic", to ethics and aesthetics, Mr. Herrman has created a systematic way to present thoughts in these areas which are very difficult to present, not to mention within areas of thought which by their nature are extremely difficult to cogently understand and present at all. His work is a direct and unique, and VERY noteworthy contribution to these areas and not only did that distinguished Professor Hartshorne think so, so do I. My work in these areas is not yet made public, but I can guarantee you that in order to solve the "Problem of Evil" you will not be able to casually walk over Mr. Herrman's methodology for synthesizing a coherent presentation of many-faceted and complex relationships between unity and plurality, among other metaphysical principles, nor can you overstep his analysis of the primary physical expressions of power and their relationships to numericity and increasingly to certain constants which unfold those relationships in a way that points right back to metaphysical relationships already well developed in Mr. Herrman's system. It cannot be casually dismissed merely because it is not plastered over some arbitrary number of your favorite mainstream science or philosophy magazines, tucked away in this or that peer reviewed journal, or so forth. It is also not decided by whatever meets someone's criteria for "Gabriels Horn". While yes, if the APA suddenly came to their senses about what this man is doing and gave him the gavel long enough to hear him out and even interact with him instead of ignore him it would be a lot more like Gabriel tooting his horn to announce the arrival of the philosophic apocolypse (and that might be appropriate), but that is not required, and often truth steals its way into the world more like a theif in the night. The point is that this matter is not fundamentally decided by recognition from others who often are too caught up in their own perilous relationship to academic success to be bothered with recognizing "another" genius working right next door to them in the same field, much less possibly towering over them in his contributions. This has happened before in the history of many fields, and this would not be the first time an independent scholar has done great work and been relatively ignored by the mainstream. That challenge is a non-challenge.
Content decides the matter here, as well as his value to others, and if these have not been substantively challenged by anyone, and I don't see how those points have, then Mr. Herrman's Wikipedia entry concerning his work as a philosopher should remain to be properly edited by all those lights who have something worthwhile to illuminate concering those noteworthy contributions of his, and should otherwise be left alone by others except for whatever benign assistance they may have to offer as to protocols of proper presentation in the open source that is Wikipedia. I haven't seen any of that helpfulness here so far, and that is an indication of a spiteful, antagonistic spirit in the proceedings.Saltylemon (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltylemon (talk • contribs) 07:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC) — Saltylemon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I personally am going to stop responding to Istheleftright and Charles S. Herrman, on the grounds that the "conversation" is one way. They say something, someone refutes it, and they say it again as if nobody replied. At this point, all we are doing is making more work for the closing admim. Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely clear what has happened, or of who is responsible, but it appears that somehow comments by contributors have been deleted by later edits (e.g, one of mine: [16]). this is totally unacceptable, if done intentionally, and if accidental needs to be rectified immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strike the above - it does however appear that comments have been moved around, and no longer appear in the order they were entered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Internet is a big place, and there are other Wikis where this material may be welcome. Many Wikis exist that don't have the same notability criteria as Wikipedia, Here are some suggestions:
Biographicon: http://www.biographicon.com/
Scholarpedia: http://www.scholarpedia.org/
Citizendium: http://en.citizendium.org/
Wikibooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Subject:Philosophy (for Mr. Herrman's books, not his biography)
Also see: Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.
You may wish to cut and paste the Wikimarkup for this article to a text editor such as Microsoft Notepad and save it in three places along with the images from the page. That way it will be easy to submit it to one of the above Wikis.
Just because a page does not meet Wikipedia's standards, that is no reason why it should disappear from the Internet. Guy Macon (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Sir I wouldn't know the difference between a user page and a talk page if the two were at opposite poles of the universe. Not only am I dyslexic, I am well meaning (at times, lol) and was only trying to send Guy Macon some notability material. I don't think I was entirely successful because I had to resort to asking another person for advice. I am a philosopher and evidently not a Wikipedian editor!! Please forgive/excuse the inadvertent trespass. The only thing that might surpass the disposition to assign negative motives is the refusal to appreciate that using the facts of your guidelines need not mean that you have to change them in the slightest. I very much approve the general framework of these guidelines and the obvious intent to be both complete and fair. It just nonpluses me that a fact can be so disturbing and unsettling to obviously well meaning and intelligent folks. No one need change a dot in you guidelines, only CLARIFY them so as to maximize their truest utility. No one is advocating that Wikipedia suffer the death of a loved guideline.Mr man1951 (talk) 03:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the repeated violations of WP:NPA, the complete lack of evidence that Herrman meets our requirements for notability, and the insistence of his supporters on inappropriately using this page as a forum for advocating changes to Wikipedia policy, it seems to me that the most sensible approach to prevent a further escalation might be to request that the AfD be closed prematurely, and for the usual assessment be then made - there seems little likelihood of any new input that could materially affect the outcome. What do other contributors think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two Tiers argument, reprised - Clearly I am frustrated. Pjoef's assessment of the Sentinel material was correct, the rest of the recent remarks are caviling and will not be dignified with further comment. Because the site has given me serious problems recently with posting, I regret to leaving everything 'as is', no cleaning. Too much work for a redo.
Mr. Herrman has already determined the validity of a fact, namely, that there is a two-tier standard for “notability”. Evidently that finding has received neither direct verification nor presumptive indirect verification, at least not amongst certain editors and academics.
But by having thus characterized the matter we restate not only a useful methodology adopted and justified by Herrman, but one that he previously demonstrated as useful in assessing the contribution of Charles S. Peirce to metaphysics (no references will be given for evidently they will be denigrated). That is to say, Mr. Herrman concluded that the Peircean system involves two processes, each a method consisting of two different but related modes of reality-testing. The first determines the "validity" of the attributive sign for a given referent; the second determines "verification" of attributes of the referent independent of the sign. Thus there is a determination of fact or truth amounting to "validation" of a sign or label so that what we say is actually what we refer to (or what we refer to is actually what our statements refer to), and then there is, as it were, third party "verification" of/for defining (and other) criteria. (It was this explication that led Peirce scholar Joseph Ransdell to tell Herrman in a private communication - which probably can be located - that the latter was very probably making a significant contribution to Peircean studies.)
Of course, verification processes are of two sorts, namely, direct and indirect. Should indirect sources be sufficient in number and/or quality, a third-party observer can reasonably rest assured of true verifiability, meaning s/he can presume truth predicated upon the indirect verification as opposed to requiring direct verification. "Thus where we either validate or employ direct verification we determine truth or facticity; where we rely on indirect sourcing/referencing we are permitted the luxury of a presumed truth or facticity". The relevance of this point is found, for example, when we look back on Van Gogh’s works, understanding that while they were validly brilliant at the time, such artistic merit took a while to receive indirect verification. We would say, in retrospect, that had matters been correctly conceived, his art work certainly "deserved recording by others" for being worthy or significant (to those with sensitivity to recognize talent by their own lights) and thus ‘notable’ even if not by the criteria of today’s exhaustive take-no-prisoners peer-review process.
If I may (by way of apology for a long introduction) now demonstrate the argument, to wit –
Now suppose, in light of the introductory explication, we take the operative word in the above excerpt to be, precisely, ""ꞌpresumed""ꞌ. Note that the "Wikipedia" guidelines consider it the same –
We will accordingly take this as denoting "indirect verification". We are now reasonably permitted to inquire whether we find Wikipedia guidelines that we can interpret as regulating "validation" by determination. We wish first to determine wherein Mr. Herrman falls in the broader classificatory schema. We find that there is a matter of possible dispute as to whether he be considered an ‘academic’ or something else.
While this suffices colloquially, "Wikipedia" appears to discriminate more carefully as between academics and others, whereat we shall attend to the following by preference -
We shall follow the sub-category ‘people’ and there find ‘Creative professionals’ (Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and others), where we can classify Mr. Herrman as, for example, an author. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_ref-0
We repeat what has before been excerpted -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_ref-0
Again we selectively assess the operative terms: to deserve attention or [deserve] to be recorded. From the Van Gogh example we recall the discussion of "determination of validity", noting that it need not imply what is "presumed verifiable/verified". In this connection it was earlier determined that such guidelines go beyond merely suggesting – they clearly elucidate - a two-tier level for notability regardless what agenda-seekers pontificate from the rooftops. We have just observed a quoted guideline stating a doctrine of notability via worthiness, where select criteria of verifiability (as between ‘popular’ or ‘academic’, "fame" and "popularity" are different not in kind but only in degree. Separately or together they speak "not" to validity but only to verifiability).
Creative professionals obtain notability by numerous avenues, the two of relevance to our discussion being –
Will any fair-minded person deny these to Mr. Herrman? Does anyone have the slightest rationale for denying that these criteria are of "validity" (the lower tier), but are nonetheless stated "Wikipedia" criteria for “notability”? A parallel in the present scuffle over notability is with freedom-fighters waging revolution over and against arbitrary authority. The unverified credibility of their "validity" rests within their bosoms until the rest of us ‘get it’. According to certain academic dictates of methodology, the dictatorships will win every time. What are the indicants that authority has become arbitrary, capricious, fixated, encrusted or rigidly paradigmatic (in Kuhnian terms)? Three signs tend to predominate: 1) Claims are made "ex cathedra" so that opposition is not brooked, and disagreement is ridiculed instead of confronted with evidence; 2) Rules govern over reason, for rules are generally favorable to the powers able to interpret and enforce them, and 3) Disputation, when it occurs, proceeds with accusations that others exemplify or instigate what they in fact represent as an agenda, with the corollary that accurate accusations to them are rebuffed as ‘red herrings’.
Does anything just enumerated remind anybody of anything? As for Wikipedia guidelines:
Mr. Herrman has had advocates making note of a problem here, one that the guidelines declare valid and verified. Mr. Herrman only yesterday completed a listing to assist in such normative accountability but for want of time and ability did not proffer all available citations and evidences. Has anyone stepped forward to assist the process or extend its time? Even more important for the administrators to consider is the crass discrimination against independent scholarship that will be vindicated if the Charles S. Herrman page is removed. It isn’t that independents should get a free pass; it is instead that they deserve equal rights to research and recognition, and aren’t getting it; they deserve validation which cannot and will not happen so long as vested interests in cupidity and narrow-mindedness dictate the fact and degree of verification methodology; in short, unaffiliated scholarship cannot pretend to accountability if validity is denied them via unaccountable rules of verification. Worthiness deserves the opportunity for verification. Put otherwise, what is reasonably validated as worthy is owed the consideration of a public airing. No less than with art, other gifts of the intellect are deserving of display, remark and comment, which is what most of us thought "Wikipedia" was largely about.Mr man1951 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
N.B.— Attribution of Hartshorne in 15th Britannica attested here.Mr man1951 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If anyone so desires, a merge may be proposed on the article's talk page, but consensus seems to be in favor of keeping the content. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I considered this first as a speedy under WP:CSD#A7 as it's so terse it's impossible to tell what the article is about. If it's about pumped storage, we already have an article on that. The Canary Islands example seems no more notable than any other power station project and is only described in a vague and speculative article from two years ago. The images make no sense at all - only one, the German rendering, seems to have any real value. Even that looks more like the cover of a Brian Aldiss s-f novel. Is the "ringworld" structure such a key part of this topic? It's not even mentioned in the text. I know AfD isn't cleanup, but this article is so poor there's nothing here to start cleaning. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that anyone called wind-hydro stations "a blueprint for a sustainable future on planet Earth." They called pumped storage "a blueprint for a sustainable future on planet Earth", using one particular wind-hydro station as an example of same. Guy Macon (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The SPA "votes" were of great concern, but even disregarding that factor the weight of argument presented favors deletion. joe deckertalk to me 14:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a Swedish market analyst, statistician and consultant within opinion polls and similar subjects. I have made an extensive, good-faith attempt to find sources that would show that he is notable per WP:BIO. The claims to notability given in the article are a couple of articles in Computer Sweden (unarguably a notable newspaper) in the early 1990s, which were based on "several high-profile analyses" he had made. These articles were definitely written, but in both cases Berglund was interviewed in his capacity of analyst at TEMO (one of the two leading marketing research institutes in Sweden), on whose behalf he had conducted the analyses. There are no other credible claims to notability in the article; on the article's talk page there are some additional claims but there are no sources for these. Berglund is claimed to have "a strong presence in the media", and based on this I've spent several hours trying to find this presence. He is based in Uppsala, and several opinion polls he has conducted have been published in the free newspaper Uppsalatidningen; the larger, older and subscription-funded newspaper Upsala Nya Tidning does not mention him anywhere in its online archives, which cover issues from 2001 and onwards. (Granted, they don't index everything in their archives, but news articles, feature articles and op-eds are included, and that's where we'd expect to find mentions of an expert in public opinion). Sveriges Radio has an extensive news archive including local coverage; no mention of Berglund. Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet - no mention of Berglund. I even checked the sensationalist tabloid-type evening press papers Aftonbladet and Expressen - no Berglund. It is uncommon in Sweden to use a middle initial, although he seems to do so pretty consistently, but I have searched both with and without it. I simply cannot find that the claims that he is a notable figure are justified. Interviews in two issues of a notable newspaper - does this make him notable?
If all Berglund's other media appearances, except for his recent mentions in Uppsalatidningen, were pre-Internet, there might of course still be a claim to notability - but my search for sources did not go quite that far.
A couple of final points: Berglund's name has been added to other Wikipedia articles in what seems to be an attempt to introduce him as an authority (see edit histories for Uppsala Konsert och Kongress, Uppsalatidningen and Uppsala Central Station, as well as the articles Ärna and Boo.com.) The same thing has happened, on a larger scale, in Swedish Wikipedia - where, however, the article about Berglund was deleted as non-notable in November last year. bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 13 April 2011 (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 Speedy delete as a hoax per WP:G3 (Credits listed were for Keith Urban.) — CactusWriter (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Autobio of a songwriter who has been hiding is talent. Certainly Google has scarcely noticed him. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: deleted per author's request (db-g7). – Athaenara ✉ 19:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References do not establish notability. Article makes no claims of notability. Beach drifter (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and I just wanted to add an article on Keith A. Buchholz as well, he is not mentioned here, hard for me to understand, that there is no article on him at wikipedia, he is one of the most important artist in fluxus at the moment. Possibly at the moment better for me, someone else focusses on him.
Shall I better do not write articles on artists I worked with during any discussions ?
Here is also no article on The New Blockaders, and to me, The New Blockaders were THE band in industrial music beside Throbbing Gristle and Nurse With Wound, Whitehouse and Organum, possibly someone else will focus on them. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The articles at LATimes and Journal mention him as artist, main information on him is at blogs, no good references, I will see if his donation of a work for permanent exhibition at Disneyland Park is better documented somewhere, mostly information I found about this donation might be originally taken from his website, I will see. I am in contact with Philipp, so can ask him for better and more references, that I can add.
So what about articles on The New Blockaders and Keith A. Buchholz, possibly another User will write some lines, ..., I will better do not during discussion, and better not lateron, for it will be always a conflict due to the fact that I like their work. But I am supposed that articles here were always written by Users, who like the subject and therefor write about this person. Cecil Touchon is mentioned with that lot of info, he is not more notable in fluxus or neo fluxus as Keith A. Buchholz is, and he has no article. Anyway, I just work as artist with Cecil Touchon as well, he saw my film DAS Backeen at Chicago Fluxfest the two curated, and now we start to work via mail at BROTKATZE Collaborations.
Concerning Philipp I have to say, that I will see, if there are better references. I will let you know in this discussion. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a word was missing: but I am SUPPOSED that ..., just added it, ... Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had more artists in mind to appear here with articles. But this might be a fault, I see by now. Kommissar Hjuler (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not released and unplayable, or at least I can't find any reliable third-party description of a release... developer's website is down. Coverage in blogs Kotaku, Joystiq and Destructoid appears to be based on a YouTube video called Super Mario Fusion, which could just as easily be a flash movie as a game. Andrevan@ 05:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the deleted PROD: No indication of notability. 6 results for 'Richard Fredric Grenvile' via Google, which suggests a decisive lack of notability for the 'pen name' of this individual. Eeekster (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW and cleanup. No arguments have been advanced for deletion except by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2011 (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)) . |
Not encyclopedic. Overblown daily diary which is a dumping ground for all sorts of miscellaneous news. Johnfos (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
c 14:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE as blatant hoax. postdlf (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either this is a real movie idea that was scrapped or it's just all a big hoax. Either way, it fails WP:NFILM because a Gsearch only turned up wikis that backlink to each other. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 02:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Nobody but the nominator thinks it should be deleted, but the "keep" opinions are mostly vague references to WP:GHITS or unspecified sources, and therefore not exactly compelling either. Sandstein 05:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, failing the GNG. The sources all are from the language's creators. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot tell if it is notable. It also has no references. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 02:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:BAND. May become notable one day, but not at present. Doomgaze (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N: Can't find reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this actor/singer/etc. under the general notability guideline. joe deckertalk to me 06:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article for a rather run-of-the-mill temp agency. Fails WP:CORP. The article has some sources, but the articles are either from unreliable sources, blog-like sites, don't include significant coverage of the company, or are articles that are primarily about the founders of the company rather than the company itself. —SW— communicate 18:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what exactly it means, but the user that created the article claims the logo (on commons) as his 'own work'. jorgenev (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2011
I have some authoritative articles from the The Guardian, The Times, Sunday Times, The Telegraph, London Evening Standard which will be referenced shortly.
I was involved in the logo creation; how should I proceed with a more correct licensing attribute?
Mattador79 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for logo creation, you should see WP:COI- if you have a conflict of interest you are heavily discouraged from editing articles relating to it. If you yourself created the logo on behalf of ABL you likely do not own the necessary rights to license the image as you did. OSborn arfcontribs. 16:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable. Very few/no gnews or other ghits. OSborn arfcontribs. 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP. All sources cited are written by this company or its parent companies, unreliable or don't mention the subject at all. Creator removed prod saying that the company is "known mainly through its unique products", however this isn't a standard of notability. Hut 8.5 10:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Android software application. With no secondary sources, there is not indication that the software meets notability criteria, and while there are thousands of Google hits for this product, I have not seen any that would constitute a reliable secondary source. VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, no indication of notability. bender235 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This Polish video game company fails the general notability guideline and WP:CORP. I could not find any independent sources that would establish the notability of this company. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another vanity page for an obscure business consultant. Only media references I can find for "The Oz Principle" are press releases. —Chowbok ☠ 22:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Biju Viswanath. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable film WuhWuzDat 07:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interuniversity event with no evidence of coverage from reliable sources. The only information appears to come from a primary source (an organization which sponsors the event). No third party coverage, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. PROD contested by author. Kinu t/c 10:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The event is a national event held across 3 universities, the information available is not in digital form, so it is not online, however one can find plenty of videos in Youtube etc. of the event which bears testimony to the fact that the event is real. And I propose that instead of deleting the article, why not put citation needed tags. Mohit Kanwal (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The delete arguments are weak (meeting WP:V currently is not required for inclusion), but those who support keeping the articles don't really address the issue being disussed. This one isn't a NPASR close, but it seems like what we really need is a discussion on whether being fully sourced is necessary to keep these articles. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|edit]] | [[Talk:List of number-one digital songs of 2011 (Canada) |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/List of number-one digital songs of 2011 (Canada) |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/List of number-one digital songs of 2011 (Canada) |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/List of number-one digital songs of 2011 (Canada) |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views) Large number of missing sources. I have looked and can't find anything to verify any of the very many unsourced positions; nothing published by CANOE seems to have any kind of archive. We had the same problem with the 2004-present Canadian Country Singles and Canadian Country Albums charts, which are published in a similar fashion and similarly lack any sort of searchable archive to verify the info (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada)). Note that the 2011 article is cited only to a single page on canoe.ca, which displays only the present week's chart and no sort of archive to search previous weeks' positions.
Last AFD was no consensus after two weeks, with no prejudice against re-nomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There do not appear to be any sources that show this TV series should have its own article. No reviews outside of what appear to be blogs, no real coverage beyond "there's a new TV series and it's called Warriors" that every TV show gets. Suggest this be deleted. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers Djc wi (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a winner of the Kerala state film award (the highest award for Malayalam cinema), she meets WP:ANYBIO--Sodabottle (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Only claim to notability is that he spoke at a conference of Python programmers. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG, unremarkable band. doomgaze (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Anne Hathaway (actress). Editorial consensus (not present here) needs to determine whether any of this is significant enough to be merged from history and included there. Sandstein 05:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Mirvish blogged on March 2 that when actress Anne Hathaway was mentioned in print, shares of unrelated mega-company Berkshire-Hathaway went up. His observation was noted by a few blogs, papers, and magazines over the next few days. User:DanMirvish created this article March 7. Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An item of humor which got a splash of coverage does not need an encyclopedia article as if it were a scientific theory, in which case it would fail WP:FRINGE. Edison (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE as blatant hoax. postdlf (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source has been produced that even indicates that such a concept is being considered. The article itself is flimsy, and, if such a project were to exist, it would be merged into a parent article until enough information was presented to prove notability. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is the article unreferenced, but it doesn't prove notability. I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]