The result was no consensus. - Bobet 09:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is problematic on many levels. If it was named "List of Black billionaires according to Forbes" it would be fine, except then it would then be a copyvio. As it is now this article is merely a speculative essay. The criteria for inclusion is ambiguous (do mulatto and blasian people qualify? What about black Papua New Guineans and Australian Aborigines?). The very issue of being black cannot be agreed upon, as you can see in the article's edit history and talk page, as well as at Talk:African Americans whose net worth is equivalent to at least $1 billion and Talk:Black people. Someone renamed the article "African Americans whose net worth is equivalent to at least $1 billion", but that was refuted. "Black people of African Ancestry whose net worth is equivalent to at least $1 billion" would probably be refuted as well. As there are barely a handful billionaires who are black (Oprah Winfrey being the only current one), the article has to be padded with essayic speculation (as is the case now). I say delete this article and mention that they are black (if it is important) in Lists of billionaires. Ezeu 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article says nothing. That and I'm tired of the damn race argument. DELETE, DELETE!!!! Everyone knows that in America particularly race matters. In this article it matters even more because the assertion that is being made and has been made overtly is that blacks are incapable of being billionaires and BEING BLACK. That the real racism behind adding that piece.
Most of you on here: Let's look at all the components of a person! Especially if he or she is "black"! They must have some other genes that account for their achievement. All or most so called African Americans or Africans in the Americas have other genes the majority Caucasian genes. So let's follow your ignorant argument that Asians and Caucasians are closest on the tree. That would mean by proxy, as a result of slavery most African American (who have been removed from African for damn near three centuries!) are the FURTHEST thing from African possible, and closer to Asians that you think. That is what makes that chart UNAPPLICABLE!
It does not take into account the mixtures that have happened as a result of chattel slavery and generations of Afro-European mixtures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:208.49.22.2 (talk • contribs)
Ezeu is right. Even though it may be argued that he's wrong about the copy vio (which I don't believe he is!), he is correct in pointing out that unless the definition for black is clarified this becomes a redundant exercise. This is becoming a referendum on what it means to be a billionaire if you have African blood coursing through your veins. The other question arises then at the same point as to who is right in their definition. Mareino if Oprah is the only person who will be counted contextually then folks can learn about her IN HER article. What's the point in saying, "geez we'd count Michael Lee-Chin but he's a unique racial category of genetic opposites." Oddly enough we have barely mentioned Bob Johnson in this article except to say in a cursory sense that he was a billionaire, but he lost that status post-divorce from Sheila.
If the argument about Jim Crow laws and one-drop rules are going to be pointed out then it needs to be noted that "black" comes in all "nationalities" if you will. It isn't much of an achievement to point out how much ground blacks have lost as they strive to be anything but black in America.
The caveat here is that there aren't that many arguments on what it means to be white and who's counted unless the KKK or other white supremacists are doing it. Moreover, I’d think we’d all agree if you don’t look white you’re not.
Question for all though: isn’t this blasian thing a phenomenon of new world intermarriage? Do the Chinese or Japanese government have a racial category for this? From what I hear the mixed children of GI’s (first true “blasians”) were treated like crap in Vietnam (which is funny as hell in brown ass Vietnam) and Korea. I even here the purer “Asians” (the Chinese and Japanese) look down on the more mixed Asian populations such as exist in Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines. Meanwhile, “black” people have opened their arms wide to welcome these downtrodden only to hear that they’d like to separate themselves.
Based on these factors I vote DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.196.2 (talk • contribs)
* 1 Membership * 2 Current trends * 3 Blacks make history among self-made women millionaires & billionaires * 4 First Black Billion dollar business * 5 References * 6 See also
which are all perfectly fine. Some work may need to be done to make racial terms more generally acceptable (i.e. Blasian, I've never heard that before in my life), the article and the contents are good: no violations of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, or WP:V. --Daniel Olsen 05:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its good information. Their is nothing racist about this. We are not disputing facts but more less emotional outbursts of people with low self esttem.
Delete This should be a category, not an article. Mallanox 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mukadderat 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is very very stubby, not linked anywhere, and appears to be pointless. If "Amateur boxer" is an official class in a notable boxing league the article should be changed to reflect that, but save that (or an actual organization called "Amateur Boxers") this article is just a dictionary definition combining the words "Amateur" and "Boxer". Staxringold talkcontribs 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB; from all I can find it's an award site that's still relatively new and lacks sources. None of the winners seem to meet the notability criteria either. Crystallina 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. 1ne 22:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've already deleted this article's twin brother back in July (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake's 7 Fan Fiction). This one is, if anything, even more nonsensical. Also unverifiable, unencylopedic, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to fail WP:MUSIC at the moment; their most notable collaboration according to the article, although initially seeming promising, is "forthcoming" - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Crystallina 00:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected. --SB | T 01:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a Kurdish celebration of Newroz and a Norouz which shouldnt even be seperate... We do not need a 3rd article. Cat out 00:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --james(talk) 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not give any reason why this truck is notable. In fact if I had not stumbled upon this article, I would have never even known what the bloody hell a "monster truck" is. Allow me to reproduce the entire article, save for the links and uselss little side box, here: Annihilator is a monster truck that races on the USHRA circuit. Displaced Brit 00:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted before afd discussion officially closed
![]() | 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)) . |
Delete. No notability. Google brings up 4 results, and none of them seems to have anything to do with the subject of the article. Previously prod'ded by User:Sparsefarce: "Non notable artist. Google search comes up with her (or another Olivia Kennett from New England) being quoted in an article about JFK, which had nothing to do with art. Also an article or two about a health instructor named Olivia Kennet. Nothing else found." ... discospinster talk 00:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE 65.175.162.145 06:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LC. There is no purpose for this list at all, pro wrestling cruft and most importantly, unencyclopedic. — Moe Epsilon 00:31 August 18 '06
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable/non-notable. Can't find any mention online other than AirPiracy.com. Article makes no clam of notability - possible vanity article. Scott Wilson 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, not a single, no video. Crumbsucker 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete: Invoking the snowball clause: Wikipedia is not a memorial. ChrisO 17:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an inexplicable POV fork of the Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The main article sufficiently covers all the facts and figures, and a highly detailed list of the death of Israelis non-notables, while certainly a tragic fact, has no encyclopedic value. This page has not resulted of consensus nor has any type of support from major editors of the pages from it is forking.--Cerejota 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep SynergeticMaggot 17:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a Norouz article explaining the topic. I do not see the reason we need a seperate article for the kurds since its the same holiday for them just like the other god knows how many countries listed on Norouz. Article is more of a link-o-rama with random links that dont provide additional info. Links are often vaiguely relate to the topic such as news reports. Some of them only have a sigle referance to the holiday while not providing any info about the holdiay itself. --Cat out 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. NeoChaosX (talk | contribs) 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have a Wikiquote page for this, and besides, this is fancruft. It's very low on content too. Bibliomaniac15 00:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as CSD A7 (and userfied).. alphaChimp laudare 03:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User created vanity page.--BigCow 01:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete proposed per WP:AUTO -submitted by Catamarans, WP:CORP as applied to chains and franchises and WP:NOT wiki is not a soapbox Ohconfucius 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a simple re-creation of previously deleted content. No attempts have been made to address the point about soapboxing and original research made in the original AFD discussion. ((db-repost)) was the correct tag for this, not AFD. Uncle G 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is article is an unchanged recreation of a previously deleted article Brahmin influence on other religions (AfD discussion). Both created by the same user.--Tigeroo 07:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serially recreated article. See [2] and Matt Boyd (wrestler). Article claims that he is a collegiate wrestler, but the linked reference shows he wrestled in high school last winter. In other words, he will be a freshman next month. Fails WP:BIO. JChap2007 01:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per NeoChaosX --Edgelord 06:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just one of hundreds of KDE themes; there's no indication that it is more notable or important than the others. Even the author's entry for Metal4kde on kde-look.org states that it is "just another metalic look for kde".
The creator of the article in question also uploaded a corresponding image with the attribution "Moty Rahamim". Moty Rahamim also happens to be the creator of the Metal4kde theme. Therefore, I think this is also a vanity article. Both the article and the image (Image:Metal4kde.jpg) should be deleted. —Psychonaut 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Alt-D (Snowball + Vanity + Bio + NN + CSD Material). Tawker 02:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of this seems to assert meeting WP:BIO. --W.marsh 01:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Media Design School is one of the most prestigious design schools in New Zealand. It's Game Dept. is award-winning, and has produced titles such as IGF 2006 Winners "Goliath" www.goliathgame.com and "Shear Factor" www.ShearFactor.co.nz.
http://www.mediadesign.school.nz/
and more specifically:
http://www.mediadesign.school.nz/diploma_of_game_development_overview.asp
also
http://www.mediadesign.school.nz/diploma_of_interactive_gaming_overview.asp
also
http://www.mediadesign.school.nz/diploma_of_interactive_gaming_faculty.asp— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.13.174 (talk • contribs)
The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Many classic books" yet none can be named and no sources can be cited. Possible vanity page. ReverendG 01:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The game does not appear to meet notability requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (software) - or anywhere near that in fact. No 3rd party sources; possible self-promotion. Mdwh 01:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Four cleanup tags, first-person writing, and no google hits for the full name - charitably, this is non-notable; more likely it's just nonsense. Opabinia regalis 01:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Obviously a hoax and therefore nonsense (G1). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(This was previously prodded, and was contested) There are no references given in this article, and I can not find any indicator that this movie is actually in production. The IMDb ID that's given gives me a 404. These things, and the super-celebrity casting makes it seem likely to be a hoax. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unbounded list of potentially infinite size. Article is unmaintainable by nature. Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 talk 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an ad, 1st person involved. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 02:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was} keep. --james(talk) 13:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term itself, while not a neologism, is not a real genre. It was a joke coined by the members of HORSE the Band during an interview to describe the sound of their album "The Mechanical Hand". The band themselves object to the use of the term as a genre. And even if that isn't enough, no other bands have adopted the term nor has it been properly used as a genre. A look on google will demonstrate that most hits are either tags on last.fm, which don't qualify as genres or as a reliable source for that matter, Wikipedia and many usernames. There isn't a reliable source, an article or anything that describes "Nintendocore" as a real genre nor that it actually links the bands named in this article to it. Its unsourced, unverifiable and pretty much taken out of context. Also, it's beyond me why the article is still on wikipedia, because it had already been nominated for deletion and the decision was "deleted". That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendocore -- Clementduval 02:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Deleted by CambridgeBayWeather as WP:NN and closed by SynergeticMaggot 21:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single Google result, contains nonsense, probable vanity. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Ageo020 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not only a stub and provides little more then a page for links, but has a few glaring other problems. Firstly, the fact that any of the violence exclusive to women, such as bride burning or sati, are covered in other articles that provide more information. Conversely, the topic of domestic violence was brought up as "predominatly suffered" by women. However, many recent studies show this to be false, and that men are more often victims of violence. With several such glaring errors, and a lack of any new and useful information other then links, is a reason why this article should simply be deleted altogether. Matt620 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as an empty page with no claim as to the notability of the subject. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this one-sentence article implies notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was a subscriber to the magazine and I thought that including this fact could be of interest. In fact, Guitar Player Magazine was the first to issue turntable playable inserts that featured artists. It is of historical note for the magazine, artist and song. Markmckeever 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 04:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the page, does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC guidelines. Article is also very poorly written, and looks a bit like self-promotion —Mets501 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologisms. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge into Ozzy Osbourne. —Mets501 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My initial reaction upon seeing article is that this band is not notable enough, but not being well-versed in the genre, would appreciate input by others. For now, delete is my opinion. --Nlu (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
The result was keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article for an band of questionable notability. See WP:BAND guidelines. Also not clear that article's sources meet requirements of WP:V. Was previously PROD, but disputed by experienced editor, so comes here for review and consensus. --Satori Son 03:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete A7, as no notability was asserted for the subject. Aguerriero (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for cleanup last month, WP:BIO and blog-like and/or advert may be applicable. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable youth choir that fails WP:ORG (it's the closest I could find, this isn't quite WP:MUSIC. In addition, the tone is not encyclopedic. Crystallina 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An advertisement-style page for a subject that fails WP:SOFTWARE. Crystallina 04:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe this is a real place. As a native of the Kapiti Coast, I have never heard of Greendale; it does not appear on any map I have or can access online (all I can find are Greendale Drive and Greendale Reserve in Otaihanga); a Google search does not give any page mentioning a village named Greendale on the Kapiti Coast; the only page (besides the Greendale disambiguation page) on Wikipedia that linked to Greendale, Kapiti was the page on Sidney Holland, who was actually born in Greendale, CANTERBURY; and most tellingly, the Land Information New Zealand website's placename database states the only Greendales (a locality and a homestead) in New Zealand are in Canterbury, not on the Kapiti Coast. Therefore, due to the lack of any evidence that Greendale is a real place on the Kapiti Coast, I have nominated the article for deletion. Axver 04:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor character. Has only ever appeared in a single comic issue. Non-notable fancruft. g026r 15:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal medical testimonial that really should be speedied, but I'm not sure it meets any criteria. So it's here. Daniel Case 04:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 04:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn website, fails WP:WEB, only two Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —Mets501 (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, wasn't a single, no video. Crumbsucker 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy DELETE for reasons 1) Author has requested (see below). 2) WP:SNOW 3) there is some evidence that the subject of the bio is unhappy. 4) borderline A7 anyway -Doc 22:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A living person, and the only indication of notability is a bit part in a movie that I'm unable to confirm from any source except for what's reportedly her resume. Significantly, not listed in IMDB for any of the major studio movies she is supposed to have appeared in. That leaves us with the fact that she's a doctor, which is nice but doesn't justify a Wikipedia article. In conjunction with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariju Bofill, the creation of these articles smacks of stalking. Picture should be deleted as well. --Michael Snow 04:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE, WP:SNOW and author's request (see below). -Doc 08:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After removal of unverifiable information, we're left with the fact that this is a State Department employee, that's all. Considering the appropriate care needed with biographies of living people, that's not a suitable article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lora Bofill. Frankly, these articles give an appearance of stalking. Picture should be deleted as well. --Michael Snow 04:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable, seems to be somewhat of an ad American Patriot 1776 04:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not long awaited on Google. JD don't talk email me 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:BIO -Bogsat 21:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably is a vanity page by blinkmusic.com. It seems non notable. --Cyclopia 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent vanispamcruftisement for not-notable webtool. 190 unique Google hits for this web-based product [12]. Google link search returns 0 hits [13]. Alexa rank = no rank [14]. Does not meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Prod removed.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Mets501 (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not many Google hits. JD don't talk email me 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep souces have been added. Eluchil404 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. Ny866 05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN and not verifiable, OR claim by obscure speculator JQ 05:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. nn websites. Ny866 05:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 04:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This event is not notable enough for a separate article. In fact, it probably isn't notable at all as the publicity from it lasted for about a week. At most, it might get a mention in a trivia section on GWB's page (much like his father's vomit episode in Japan has on GHWB's page), but again, I don't think the bike accident is worthy of any mention. Cjosefy 05:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Companies. Google 886 hits, Japanese Wikipedia as non article. Ny866 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial promotion, NN JQ 06:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn Software, Google 885hits. Dey68 07:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn companies. Dey68 07:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Mets501 (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Nonnotable local newscaster; no indication of meeting the criteria at WP:BIO. User:Angr 07:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Only 100 unique ghits, although 25000 raw hits. No independent coverage as far as I can see. Current entry is a blatant advert, not to mention a copyvio since the content is exactly that of the official webpage of the service. Pascal.Tesson 07:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. 1ne 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an collection of information about a show which combines the tunes of 3 shows. Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary, and all the other things wiki is not. Ohconfucius 08:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stereotypes are not encyclopedic, and this article is not referenced. A similar section in the Auckland article was removed earlier; see [20] and Talk:Auckland#Social_perceptions_section_-_removed. Delete.-gadfium 08:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was userfy and delete from mainspace. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at this, the more it looks like vanity. It was created by user Gary Jacobsen (talk · contribs) and it links to his personal web page. Userfication may be appropriate. Discuss: --Xrblsnggt 09:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted, no assertion of notability. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a person with no assertion of notability. Unsure if the article qualifies for a speedy delete, but if it does, it would fall under CSD A7. Kyra 10:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per A7 Petros471 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic Delete -Doc 10:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. As Tony points out, AfD is not the place to try to delete redirects. Beside the point, but a useful bit of info if you're planning to go to RfD, is that typo redirects are extremely useful and attempting to delete one is Very Silly. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
typo. hence, delete __earth (Talk) 10:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB. 'Nuff said. ➨ ЯEDVERS 10:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by me. Iolakana•T 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable high school band. Fireplace 11:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "good" band. Dancarney 11:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Petros471 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny one :-) nn-vaninonsense. The author "cleverly" created the article with a ((prod)) tag, waited until the article had disappeared from new article patrollers' radar, then deleted the prod tag. Technically a deprod so here we are. Weregerbil 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Couch potato. --CharlotteWebb 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While this is a valid phrase in the dictionary, I don't see how this becomes anything more than a mere dic-def. The entry in Wiktionary already has more info so there's nothing to transwiki. Apparently it can't be prod'd because it was nominated for VFD three years ago. Delete as WP is not dictionary. Wickethewok 13:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 1,760,217. Contested prod. Geoffrey Spear 13:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. 186 Ghits, most of which are related to a chocolate manufacturer and not the subject of the article. Geoffrey Spear 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly a Honduran Colonel, but I find no sources. One web result returns something related to Ruben Villanueva + Honduras, but states it is a Mexican soldier, not a Honduran officer. Apart from that, no sources that apparently relate to it. Creator's only contribution. --Thunderhead 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy spammy spam spam. Prod removed by author. Non-notable, advertising, vanity, you name it. -- Merope 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NN biography. Possibly vanity, as subject of article shares surname of author. I requested an SD (per CSD A7), but was changed to prod by another editor. Prod then removed by author. -- Merope 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
advertising puff piece that reads like a press release. Unencyclopedic and does not appear to be at all notable. Spartaz 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC) DELETE as nom --Spartaz 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite speedy A1. Suspect prod would just get removed, so AFD it is. Delete as nn spam. Petros471 14:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism article. Unique Google hits for (potbangers -wikipedia) = 44 [22] (potbanger -wikipedia) = 67 [23]Fails: WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- Netsnipe (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - this one seems clear enough that we don't need to spend much time on it. Friday (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two-month-old website, no Alexa ranking. Lots of Ghits but you would expect that for a wiki site. NawlinWiki 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography JoJan 14:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a copyvio. I won't object if it's restored as a free version. Yanksox 23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smacks of copyvio, first person. This seems non-notable, merits a blurb in the CSU-Fullerton article maybe. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Good work, Grutness. --CharlotteWebb 20:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CSD A7, no assertion of notability TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 14:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily redirected by Hydraton31. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing in the article and there is nothing to be merged into the much better Runnin' With the Devil which contains all of the information already. --Hydraton31 14:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The lack of participation makes this more of a case of editors thinking "too long; didn't read" than being actually representative of an issue with equal merits one way or the other. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vanity article by Peter Proctor aka Pproctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not about himself but about his colleague. All the references are to his own website, where you can buy hair loss shampoo for $109.95. The article claims no real notability; he has held no positions, been elected to scientific societies, won awards, and so on. I strongly suspect that the inbound links were also added by Pproctor (talk · contribs) who has been promiting himself incessently particularly by adding spam to Baldness treatments [24] and his cranky self-admitting whine that he was not awarded a Nobel Prize to the Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize controversies page. This users arrogance and contempt for Wikipedia policies is evident on his talk page where he insists that he is superior to everyone else because he has a Phd (apparently without consideration that others might too). — Dunc|☺ 15:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF Criteria If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on verifiability.
First, after the 2000 Nobel business, John was nominated for a Nobel. By pioneering Melanin researcher Roberto Nicolaus, Head of the Accademia Pontanian in Naples. If memory serves, he is ex-officio a Noble nominator.
Second, John is like Herman Carr and figures making a fuss about "discovery credit" is, well, tacky. But even Carr finally came foreward, not to complain about the Nobel, but about getting deprived of credit for his discovery. I'm the pushy culprit here-- for years, I watched others take credit for stuff he had originally done and bugged him to step foreward, at least a little. When people he had a patent issue with won the 2000 Noble, I finally took matters in hand. Similarly, the issue is not the Nobel, but discovery credit. How would you like to discover something really important and then see somebody else grab credit for it?
Second, Hush in his PNYAS history of molecular electronics specifies it well. John was too early. BTW, this is not unknown--Gregor Mendel's work in classical genetics took 30 years to be recognized and Peyton Raus' 1910 discovery of a cancer virus in chickens waited even longer. This does not mean their discoveries were unimportant, Just too early.
Another major problem was Shirakawa et al, who came along three years later, rediscovered the high conductivity potential of the oxidized polyacetylenes and then proceeded to produce over 400 papers and patents with out a single reference to John's work. Under such circumstances, how could anybody coming later have known there was something prior to them? Also see Dulbecco's law. BTW, when I asked one of the Nobel winners about this situation and noted that we had sent them several letters, his dismissive reply was "Well, there's always history". Right about that.
The real problem was not missing a Nobel. As I keep being correctly reminded, that is just a matter of luck. The real issue was being completely stripped of any credit at all for an important discovery. Who gets the Nobel is a subjective judgement. However, here the 2000 Nobel citation is obviously factually incorrect. When I asked for a slight correction, noting our "prior art", I got the usual stony silence. The reputation for infallibility of the Nobel is more important to them than the true history of discovery.
More recently, my efforts have made people aware of this earlier work. Which is why you are now starting to see it referenced. BTW, if you want to see the references to Johns work, use "melanin" as a key word. The pigment cell people always knew about John. Same with people who work with the toxicity of adriamycin, cisplatin, or bleomycin. Use those as keywords. Pproctor 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use "melanin", adriamycin, cisplatinum (cisplatin) and bleomycin as keywords. Also see my comment above. Again, see Dulbecco's law-- Citations do not always correlate with priority of discovery. Which is what John unquestionably has.Pproctor 01:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could give similar examples, ad nauseum.
Speedy Keep and give the two mud wrestlers a 24-hour block for disruption. Edit wars should not be brought here. VivianDarkbloom 19:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The exact exerpt from Hush's ANYAS article reads:
Similarly, the abstract of the review article "The Function of Melanins" says:
WP:PROF likes multiple accomplishments. Remember, besides characterizing the electronic and physical properties of the melanins in these and later papers, John did two things WRT the gadget at issue. The first was to define conduction mechanisms in polyacetylene-like compounds (ref. 1). This is a large part of what Shirakawa et al got the Nobel for. BTW, they claim not to have seen John's previous analysis in Science. So these were independent developments.
The other was, as Hish notes, "the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device". That is, John occupies the same position in the history of organic electronics as the guys who built the first transistor. Nothing analogous showed up for a decade or two. John also got two patents for solid-state organic polymer batteries, at roughly the same time as did the Nobel winners. Interestingly, the description of the material they ended up using in their batteries is essentially identical to the one John started with in 1972.
Similarly, I haven't listed this yet, but John was also the first researcher to demonstrate that the toxicity of the anticancer drug cisplatin is due to generation of reactive oxygen species ROS, as well as the fact that the toxicity of adriamycin, cisplatin, and bleomycin has an important extracellular component involving ROS. All avery big deals these days and by itself enough to qualify any researcher for WP:PROF. Similarly, John did signicant work on structured water (the basis of most MRI}, and the toxicity of certain psychiatric medications. Not bad for a solid-state physicist.
Also see the review article "The Function of melanin".
Additional Sample papers:
McGinness J, Kishimoto A, Hollister LE. Avoiding neurotoxicity with lithium-carbamazepine combinations. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1990;26(2):181-4.
McGinness JE, Grossie B Jr, Proctor PH, Benjamin RS, Gulati OP, Hokanson JA. Effect of dose schedule of vitamin E and hydroxethylruticide on intestinal toxicity induced by adriamycin. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR. 1986;18(1):17-24.
McGinness J. A new view of pigmented neurons. J Theor Biol. 1985 Aug 7;115(3):475-6.
Gulati OP, Nordmann H, Aellig A, Maignan MF, McGinness J. Protective effects of O-(beta-hydroxyethyl)-rutosides (HR) against adriamycin-induced toxicity in rats. Arch Int Pharmacodyn Ther. 1985 Feb;273(2):323-34.
Schrauzer GN, McGinness JE, Ishmael D, Bell LJ. Alcoholism and cancer. I. Effects of long-term exposure to alcohol on spontaneous mammary adenocarcinoma and prolactin levels in C3H/St mice. J Stud Alcohol. 1979 Mar;40(3):240-6.
Pietronigro DD, McGinness JE, Koren MJ, Crippa R, Seligman ML, Demopoulos HB. Spontaneous generation of adriamycin semiquinone radicals at physiologic pH. Physiol Chem Phys. 1979;11(5):405-14.
McGinness JE, Crippa PR, Kirkpatrick DS, Proctor PH. Reversible and irreversible changes in hydrogen ion titration curves of melanins. Physiol Chem Phys. 1979;11(3):217-23.
Kirkpatrick DS, McGinness JE, Moorhead WD, Corry PM, Proctor PH. High-frequency dielectric spectroscopy of concentrated membrane suspensions. Biophys J. 1978 Oct;24(1):243-5.
I vote yes, to keep the entry Pproctor 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
)
Don't understand your objection. John meets most, if not all of the WP:PROF criteria. To give one example among many-- As I hopefully have made clear, Dr McGinness plays essentially the same role in organic electronics (e.g.) as Shockley, Bardeen, etc. play in the invention of the transistor. That is, he built the first device. This is well-documented in a recent definitive history of organic electronics, which I cite at length. Nobody doubts it, well-established.
If you have any reason to question this assertion in the face of such documentation, please cite it so I can give proper credit to the real inventor of the "plastic transistor". This device is the parent of (e.g.) most color displays on cell phones. Similarly, few researchers have their work the subject of a Nature "News and Views" article.
If such does not meet the definition of "notability", it is unclear to me what does. Please list your criteria so we can discuss this issue. Also, I am not sure where you get the notion that John's work has been uncited. Please cite your sources, which are almost certainly incomplete. I suggest "Citation Index". John is cited extensively in both the pigment cell literature and the literature on the toxicity of anticancer drugs.
BTW, ever since defending Raymond Damadian, I have been getting flack from people who seem to be anticreationists and apparently have gotten the wrong idea. Just in case this colors your view-- I am the author of a major paper in the journal Nature on classic human evolution which was part of an on-going issue raised by JBS Haldane. Details on request. Similarly, see Dr McGinness' Website at www.organicmetals.com. The second line is ""Here is a more curious case: white cats, if they have blue eyes, are almost always deaf.", Charles Darwin. Please don't feed the creationist's paranoia any more. Pproctor 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on this diff alone [25]. Proctor, an AFD is not for you to air your grievances with the system or with particular editors. You have cluttered this page with self-serving garbage because your article about a non-notable person that appears to be written more for self-aggrandisement is up for deletion. •Jim62sch• 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Local antiques newspaper, lacks notability Dsreyn 15:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spamvertising for nonnotable company; 201 unique Ghits. NawlinWiki 15:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --CharlotteWebb 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the Tom Moreland Interchange is notable, I gave this a couple weeks to become not a resume, and it's pretty much stay'd the same. I support cleanup and NPOVing first, but that didn't seem to happen. I nominated for AfD as the article really doesn't provide much useful information, and hasn't been improved. i kan reed 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously deleted per WP:PROD, but was contested. it is a non-notable software product and reads like an advertisement. Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Nom withdrew, confirmed on my talk page here. SynergeticMaggot 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's a hoax. The creator is known to have created many hoaxes over wikipedia. See report for vandalism Verified. Apologies-- Szvest 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No claim of notability Dsreyn 16:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to skip prod, because the author appears to be acting out of bad faith(i.e. removing templates without addressing their concerns). The proposed reason for deletion is failure of WP:WEB and an article that doesn't follow NPOV guidelines. i kan reed 16:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was AfD withdrawn by nominator. (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No claim of notability - just a series of insignificant facts about this person Dsreyn 16:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An E-Wrestler (a person who writes roleplay pretending to be a wrestler), thus none notable. Englishrose 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Englishrose 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is original research, and it doesn't have any sources. Whispering(talk/c) 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Similar content already exists as List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams; no need for a duplicate list Dsreyn 17:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --james(talk) 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list on the page is already mentioned in the main Leo Tolstoy article. Gray Porpoise 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web cartoon. Gray Porpoise 17:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, obviously. Would have been a valid speedy. Friday (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress/model. Doing a Google search for "Tia Gordon" + model yields 0 hits for this person. Speedy removed by author and another editor. Wildthing61476 18:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable recently declared micronation. Prod removed without reason by author Wildthing61476 18:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Semiprofessional street hockey league in Hamburg, NY. Nonnotable. NawlinWiki 20:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --CharlotteWebb 20:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of the worthyness of a page like this and infact any other oldest person in a State. Oldest in the USA or UK or Germany or any other country fair enough. Oldest in the World fine. But oldest in a area of a country no matter how large that area or country is not worthy of a article.Jimmmmmmmmm 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone listed in the Guinness World Records is qualified to have a short article about them.
*Weak Keep Based on the Supercentenarians category I guess there is a precendent for these articles. I just looked through a few of them and none of them seem to have done anything particularly notable other than being old. This would seem to contradict WP:BIO so I'm not sure what to do. DrunkenSmurf 20:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. This user includes stuff that many would consider 'junk' such as some third-rate footballer league that no one outside the UK really cares about. Talk about hypocrisy. He also misspelled 'worthiness,' indicating the mindset of such a claim.
Ok, enough of that. Florence Homan was born Nov 18 1893. Last I checked, the UK's oldest living person, Annie Knight, was born June 6 1895. In the grand scheme of things, Florence's age is more significant and thus Florence is listed in the 2007 edition of Guinness World Records (p. 67).
Also, we see that people other than myself have created articles on 'supercentenarians' aged a mere 110 or 111 years old, such as 'Vermont's oldest person.' Thus, like the debate about whether Pluto is a planet, the bar has been set much lower than this.
Also, User JImmmmmmmm seems to be disrespectful of the USA...we've seen 'oldest in Scotland,' is that just one country or a division? Ohio has 11 million plus persons, more than Ireland and Scotland combined. R Young {yakłtalk} 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back to this page. What is here inclusion in the Guiness book of Records for? Maybe you could elaborate on the page about it. The age of here compared to the oldest person in the UK doesn't matter. The UK is a country Ohio and Vermont are states. London has 6m people would you start an article on the oldest person in London, no because it's pointless. If she isn't the oldest in America I'm not sure what her achievement is. Jimmmmmmmmm 20:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even add every 110th birthday story. But I think if someone is the world's 12th-oldest person, they deserve at least a paragraph or two. People in the future will ask 'whatever happened to so-and-so' when they read the 2007 Guinness Book. It's a good idea to have the answer. Plus, just maybe we can educate the public a little. If they realize that a 'few' people make it to this age, they might start to understand what the maximum human life span is (122...not 100, not 140).→ R Young {yakłtalk} 04:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current number of supercentenarian articles on Wikipedia is 118, far less than the number of football or baseball players. If we're going to have Wikipedia information on every city and town in America, surely we could do the 'oldest out of 11.5 million people.' Sheesh. This lady was an adult when the Titanic sank. She was older than London's Tower Bridge. Not a single person left in the UK is 112.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Consider this not just about Florence Homan but about articles on persons famous for age).
I categorized Florence Homan as a 'supercentenarian' (persons aged 110+). My general policy is to give every verified person an article who reaches 112.5 (halfway between 112 and 115). Why? Consider the current 'top 10' oldest people, the 9th and 10th-oldest are 112 (but closer to 113). To be more specific, Florence Homan was 112.73 years old.
News-worthiness is also decided by a number of other non-numerical factors, including a person's history, family, and personality. Clearly, this woman had no remaining family and so got only weak media coverage, while someone like Virginia Muise (aged 111), more than a year younger as 'New Hampshire's oldest person,' got multi-state news coverage. In fairness, Florence deserved more. In another state, it was claimed that Olive Dubay, 110, was Michigan's oldest person:
http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/2006/08/11/news/local_regional/n ews01.txt
But I didn't do an article on her. At the time, she ranked 58th-oldest in the world. So, while I think this article clearly should stay (and the 'keep' is winning), a real question should not be whether to keep this but what standards should be employed.
I totally disagree with User Jimmm's comments. I wasn't saying that Ohioans were more important than Scots because they were superior or better. I was saying that, given the population of Ohio is over twice that of Scotland, and given Ohio's economic and political strength, it is unwise to simply dismiss a US state. The US is a Federal, not unitary, system. In Russia, governors are often selected by Vladimir Putin. Subdivisions are often just a matter of geographic convenience. Most recognize that, traditionally, national subdivisions of the USA, Canada, and Australia are shown on the map. Anglo-centric? Perhaps. But that's what map-makers do.
As for Florence and Australia, she was in fact older than anyone in Australia at the time (by more than a year). Jimm's comments are like saying the USA can't have the bronze medal because they have the silver. Look at the U.S. Congress. The big state/small state compromise let equal represenation in the Senate, proportional representation in the House. Clearly, it's a split-the difference solution, but each side gave some ground. The bottom line: there is something to be said that '5th-oldest of country X' may not sound like a lot, but look at the other side. The USA is #1 in the world in the 110+ population. Giving the USA more articles thus serves as somewhat proportional representation to reflect this reality. At the same time, no one did an article on Olive Dubay, even though she was older than Switzerland's oldest person (someone did an article on that one). So, like the big state/small state compromise, I believe there is a sensible line here. We are giving the USA a few more articles than 'one country, one article' but in reality, the USA is not getting its due. If anything, the INORDINATE number of British/UK centenarian and supercentenarian articles betray a UK bias. We see among 'Surviving Veterans of WWI' that far more UK soldiers have an article, even if their age were younger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Cummins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Newcombe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Roberts_%28veteran%29
Meanwhile, check out Americans, Italians, Germans, Poles, etc without articles.
Living in the USA - 18 veterans Name DOB Nationality Force Served Notes Anderson, Homer 1897 24 December American USA-Balloon Corps Resides in Florida Babcock, John F. 1900 23 July Canadian Canadian Resides in Spokane, Washington Brown, Lloyd 1901 7 October American USA-Navy Resides in Maryland Buchanan, Russell 1900 24 January American USA-Navy Resides in Watertown, Massachusetts, and is also a WWII veteran Buckles, Frank Woodroff 1901 February 1 American USA-Army Resides in West Virginia Coffey, J. Russell 1898 1 September American USA-Army Resides in Ohio
So, 'oldcruft' is OK for the UK, even when not the oldest living veteran, while non-UK veterans get ignored, even if they are older?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving_veterans_of_the_First_World_War
Look at the other lists. Italy NO articles, France 13%, Germany 11%, USA 39% coverage, UK 71% (5 of 7) coverage. Clearly, the UK is getting more than its fair share.
But, you might say, that's because the UK Wikipedians have taken the initiative to do more articles. The same might be said for the USA. If you want to start deleting articles, do we really need to know who is a 105-year-old non-combat WWI veteran? And if yes, why not for all the nations, not just one? 68.219.137.224 14:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One comment from Jimmm...about Ohio not having a 'parliament'...is totally ridiculous. The USA has a Congress, and Ohio DOES have a legislature. Wow. It's amazing how little people really know about places outside their area.
The result was keep. - Bobet 13:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject matter is someone who is quite obscure. Though I understand certain colleges may like to showcase their alumni in order to enhance institutional prestige, some of these entries resemble press releases. Gold Gloves? Cad to a fashion magazine editor? Worked for Ralph Nader? Good grief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardG (talk • contribs)
The result was Delete. Yanksox 01:47, 28 August 2006 (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)) . |
Non-notable show. Google search turns up no results for this show or TCUDG. Prod removed without reason by author Wildthing61476 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the nomination for deletion, the Tom El Fuego article has been cleaned up. There is no longer any mention of "TCUDG" in the article. All facts are correct.Tomelfuego 21:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another "new philosophy"; original research and unverifiable, if not hoax. NawlinWiki 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As with Historic Wrestling Roster and Historical Tag Team List, unneccessary listcruft. Recommend deletion and possible severe warning of author to stop creating these lists Wildthing61476 21:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internet television show with 1 episode in production, others in pre-production. It hasn't generated any independent coverage, so it fails under WP:V and WP:RS. There's a bit of crystal balling going on too. This Google search and this Yahoo! search bring up no independent sources. I'd also like to point out the AfD for Into The Black, which was deleted on the same grounds. The content is almost identical in both articles. However, please note that this is not a recreation- I just forgot to look up "Into the Black" in addition to "Into The Black". --Wafulz 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Character/gag from a radio show. Must be kept in parent page. Medico80 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ECB precipitated the remarks by Michael Savage on the "Savage Nation" which led to his removal from MSNBC. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/08/1510241 this clearly makes him more significant than just KiddChris's flunky.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_%28commentator%29#MSNBC The Bob being referred to is ECB. Vargob 03:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked. Sam Blanning(talk) 13:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'Speedy delete' per A7; encyclopedic notability not shown in article.. Shell babelfish 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, unverifiable, may be hoax. Prodded, prod removed (and article changed into yet another kind of nonsense) by anon. May even be G1 speedy candidate, but the previous version looked more coherent. Delete --Huon 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn, consensus is keep Martinp23 22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article is welcome when the album exists, or when it has some more concrete release information.(IMHO) SweetNeo85 22:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant vanity article of non-notable academic. Created by User:Akman and is almost identical to his user page, and identical to since-reverted changes he made to Template:Philosopher-stub. Prod was attempted, but removed by anonymous editor along with autobiography and potential-vanity templates so beginning AfD Wingsandsword 22:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have WP:OR issues here, as well as this being questionably encyclopedic and probably at best deserves one line in the Missouri article. (The page seems to have been created in response to similar information being excluded by other editors at the Missouri article). Peyna 22:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Fetzer is not a notable person. Morton devonshire 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable alternative medicine practitioner. Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Possible advert. -AED 22:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The book has yet to be picked up through traditional publishing but wil be released soon on a self-publishing basis by the author himself." see WP:Not a crystal ball, WP:Notability Camillus (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible vanity. Created by User:Esteban, who also created the Stephen Goodfellow article, which has twice been deleted as vanity. "Radiative Primarism" is credited as being "conceived of by artist Stephen Goodfellow". Majority of google hits are Wikipedia mirrors and artists own website. Infrogmation 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this does not satisfy, I can scan a plethora of reviews on the subject from a wide verity of publications.
Esteban 01:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Livejournal webcomic, fails WP:WEB. Prod removed without comment. Peripitus (Talk) 23:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:CORP; non-notable software; the name "SmartWare" applies to a lot of companies and products including cookware, so Google counts are misleading; Alexa has no rating for the corporate website and counts only 16 other sites that link to it. If one removes the article's cruft, there's nothing in it to indicate notability - not that any of it is sourced... Rklawton 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. I would take issue with this decision establishing a consensus as to whether to keep or delete individual song articles by this or other artists. My personal opinion is that they should be decided on a case-by-case basis. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've got LOADS of articles on individual AC/DC album tracks that have no other claim for notability. I'm listing this one to establish some kind of community consensus as to whether individual album tracks deserve individual articles. The articles generally repeat info from the album page and not much else besides. DELETE exolon 00:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, but remove any and all unsourced or poorly sourced entries as per WP:LIVING (if such is the case), and don't put them back until you find adequate references. The arguments presented for deleting this list are accompanied by the suggestion of dumping everything into a category, which would darken the situation from imperfect to incurable. Remember that it is not possible to add footnotes to an automatically generated category page, which, in isolation and at face value, may be interpreted as libelous. Controversial classifications, especially of people, should be handled by properly cited lists, rather than by categories. --CharlotteWebb 19:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for deletion. Most of listed names are not sourced and listing them does not meet WP:V. Jimbo has said that calling someone a "porn star" without providing a source is something that should be removed from Wikipedia articles. Everyone who should be on a list like this and meets the sourcing rules for WP:BIO for living persons should be listed in the gay porn stars category which already has many more verified names than this list. WP doesn't need two different lists on the same subject (even if one is called a category). The category is better. So it is the one that should be kept. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, discounting single purpose-accounts. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
Vanity page, non-notable subject Tsimshatsui 00:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know about all this. It seems that both sides are spamming to me. But I don't think that any rules are being broken and don't see what would be gained from deletion. Honestly, Wiki lists porn stars -- many of which are pretty obscure, too. Whatever. Don't like a show, change the channel. Don't like a web site, don't read it.
I don't recall reading anything on Wiki that stated that I couldn't invite my friends to partipate in discussions. I have many contributions over the past year to Wiki (I am no where near a single user account) -- a large portion were the articles mentioned on the AFD, but I have also contributed to content regarding Florida history, theme parks, automobiles, video games, heavy trucks and other topics I am familar with. I will make any changes that are suggested. But so far, no suggestions have been made. I will break it down: A. These Pages meet Wiki's Reliable Sources: I have cited several newspaper articles (New York Times/Orlando Business Journal/Central Florida Future) confirm the info. B. Wiki's Non-Notable Subject: the Subject is also listed on many other entertainment web sites. C. "Delete per well documented nom" - Not a single user has once tried to rebute any of the facts I have listed. DodgeM4S
Well if its more newspaper sources you need -- that really isn't a problem. They just aren't online any more (most newspapers delete their content after a few months). But I've saved lots of newspaper articles regarding the local film industry. I'm going to UCF to join the film school, but I just a sophomore still (not in the film school yet). I'd be happy to photocopy any of them and mail them to any of the editors. I've been collecting news clipping since 1998 when the Blair Witch Project came out. I've got a ton of stuff on local feature films like Blair Witch, Flora Plum, The Bros., Jurrassic Park III, Alone and Restless, Larry The Cable Guy: Health Inspector, Olive Juice, etc. I've also got articles for the TV shows: Carpocolypse, Sheena, From Earth to the Moon and the Pet Psychic. I know I've got at least 2 articles on Alone and Restless, I think I got one on Black Zone, too. I can Userfy if necessary -- but it would be a lot of work to Userfy all the submissions that are flagged. Which ones would I need to userfy and which ones already meet Wiki guidelines? As for the trivia section -- its almost all cut and pasted off of IMDb. The bio, I cut and pasted off the official site. Perhaps I should cut and paste the content to another Wiki article I've been working on Florida Film Industry. Suggestions????? DodgeM4S
I would like to point out that WP: VAIN states this: "an article about a little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, a member, or a manager, roadie, groupie, etc. Articles on very little-known subjects are often of debatable value for our readers, so if you write a new article on one it is particularly important to express the facts in a neutral way and as much as possible to cite sources that are credible, neutral, and independent." This policy does not expressly prohibit content on subjects that are considered little-known -- and how many "indie" filmmakers are considered well-known? I think his occupation puts him at a unfair disadvantage. But as per wiki guidelines, even if he is deemed little-known by an administrator that still does not prohibit the content of the above articles The articles are very credible, neutral and independent. ...and any passages to the contrary I would be happy to delete. DodgeM4S
I would also like to argue on the grounds WP: PORN BIO -- Why is it so much more difficult for an independent film maker to be considered relavent to Wikipedia than a porn star? Does a Porn Star need 3-4 third party newspaper interviews (since movie synopsis don't count) to be deemed notable and how many porn stars actually have been flagged for the lack of these newspaper articles? DodgeM4S
--DodgeM4S 21:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--DodgeM4S 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--DodgeM4S 07:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A decision was recently made to delete List of law firms (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms (2nd nomination)), and it seems that the logical next step is to consider for deletion each of the sub-lists that were created under that article, including this. Legis 07:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --CharlotteWebb 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A decision was recently made to delete List of law firms (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms (2nd nomination)), and it seems that the logical next step is to consider for deletion each of the sub-lists that were created under that article, including this one. Legis 08:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A decision was recently made to delete List of law firms (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms (2nd nomination)), and it seems that the logical next step is to consider for deletion each of the sub-lists that were created under that article, including this one. Legis 08:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]