< December 6 | December 8 > |
---|
The result was speedy delete (CSD A7). Non-administrative closure. Spacepotato (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may not meet notability criteria Quanticle (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per the discussion below. It should be treated case by case and some of the personalities have varying rates of notability particularly the anchors and those who are more known.--JForget 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notability TV personality; Wikipedia is not a repository for these. Rufus843 (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (all citytv staff): :JoJo Chintoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Mark Dailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Laura DiBattista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Marianne Dimain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Dwight Drummond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Francis D'Souza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Merella Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Frank Ferragine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Kevin Frankish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Melissa Grelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Lorne Honickman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Dr. Karl Kabasele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Michael Kuss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Jee-Yun Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Richard Madan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Anne Mroczkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Cynthia Mulligan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Farah Nasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Dina Pugliese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Tonya Rouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Omar Sachedina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Pam Seatle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Nalini Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :Jennifer Valentyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The result was Delete here.. Mercury 03:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously speedy deleted by myself several times for A7 violations it now has an assertion of notability through "under 21 national sabre champion of Ireland". In my opinion this assertion still does not merit an article, but as it is no longer a speedy candidate I'm filing it here. –– Lid(Talk) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete. This needs references or it should fail its next AfD. 1 != 2 03:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable cartoon episode. Ridernyc (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Re the template placed there, probably worth keeping the article as the project was a semi-notable fusion of two popular cartoon franchises supported by two different production teams. Such an occurrence is/was semi-rare, a la Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. Still, I'll be duplicating the present content to nickelodeon.wikia.com just in case. knoodelhed (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Theresult was Keep --JForget 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly procedural nomination. This was speedied by User:Danny in October, with the edit summary "completely unsourced collection of allegations", but there's no record of any discussion (no prior AFD, no talk page discussion after May of 2007, etc.) as to what his or other people's concerns may have been. While it does require some reference improvements, I'm having trouble finding anything in this article that would violate WP:BLP, and the subject himself is unquestionably notable enough for an article. Deletion was clearly out of process as this doesn't meet any speedy criterion. No vote from me, but I would like to know if other people see problems here that I don't. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Consensus to delete per lack of notability. 1 != 2 03:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about speedying this, but decided to just AfD because I'm not sure whether or not he makes an assertion of notability. Pretty much...this guy isn't notable. He's a lawyer, he has the proper credentials to serve as an attorney on the court of appeals. And...he wrote the article himself. Never held any office...just an attorney. SmashvilleBONK! 22:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*weak keep - notability is borderline at best but I am so happy to see a well-referenced article after so many other articles with no references at all, so I give the article extra credit. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, reliable sources do not demonstrate notability. 1 != 2 03:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article on the main Earthbound game website has no assertion of notability, which in this case would involve article talking about the website and other coverage, which seems not to exist for this website. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete & redirect to SkyCable. — Scientizzle 00:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded, reads like an instruction manual, uneyclopedic, etc ViperSnake151 22:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn--recently discovered that he was U.S. Attorney for Utah during the Clinton administration. By definition, that's notable. Blueboy96 11:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really was wary about hitting the delete button on this one ... but this is an unsuccessful candidate in an election. His only other possible claim to notability is that he's a former dean of a major law school, but it doesn't seem that this meets WP:BIO. Blueboy96 22:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete which isn't any judgment on her or even a decision that comes easy to anybody who has participated here, but the lack of reliable sources that cover the person's life in depth has not been overcome. Or to rephrase some of the opposing arguments, Wikipedia is not for keeping a memory alive or answering questions that are answered nowhere else.Tikiwont (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Featured person not notable, violates WP:BIO Anietor (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I notice among the delete crowd a lot of sneering references to "a nice lady" in "the neighborhood." How much is this about the fact that the "not notable" person is a woman, and not some professional man with a lot of letters after his name? Barbaraburrell (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Robert Storm Petersen. Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no references that show anyone has ever used this term. At best, this is a Wiktionary article Konczewski (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.. Mercury 03:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teeny tiny assertion of notability, otherwise I'd have speedied this non-notable medical student. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content fork. Delete and merge into Jim Wacker. Blueboy96 21:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as not notable -- runner-ups in reality shows generally do not get a WP page without doing more than just an appearance on TV -- and no reliable sources or even any proof about any accomplishments that would make the subject notable. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable reality TV contestant. Eatcacti (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! Chantal is amazing, and she is a true top model! She doesn't deserved to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggs123 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP This article is about a person who has national noteriety. There are many such articles about individuls with less noteriety, that have been deemed worthy of rentention, and have survived nomination for deleteion. Standards should applied equally. If Chantal deserves to be deleted, then EVERYONE who is of only equal noteriety also should be deleted. 63.206.206.254 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason to delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.130.91 (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please keep this article. you have one for heather, even though she didnt even make it that far. keeppp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.153.111 (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please remove as she is not the winner and there is;t much to talk about her since all we know was she is a runner-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.141.181 (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-There's no reason why her page should be deleted. So she's not the best and a runner up, but that doesn't mean her page should be deleted because of those reasons.
Delete - After few mouths, she will be forgotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.174.29 (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!the other runner ups have one, and so does heatherJollyphunkster (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Xoloz (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No real assertion of notability - perhaps I've missed how the subject meets WP:MUSIC? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The "notability for high achievement" argument, though not conclusively successful in this debate, has sufficient weight to prevent a consensus for deletion at this time. Xoloz (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable elementary school. Blueboy96 21:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism, no references. --Explodicle (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:NOT#INFO and verifiability concerns. Content can be merged into main article, I can e-mail the content on request. 1 != 2 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unbelievably long list of things that have happened on The Jim Rome Show. It's unsourced, indiscriminate, and un-encyclopedic. Note that this is not the show's Wikipedia page. CastAStone//(talk) 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally listed as a PROD, this article is little more than a resume or personal profile for someone that doesn't meet WP:BIO. Not really much more to say about it. Isotope23 talk 20:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete, requires cleanup. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No CSD. Besides, I'm not entirely sure if this page should be deleted, or if it could be encyclopedic. Cassie Puma (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what does CSD stand for? Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ify.offor (talk • contribs) 2007-12-07T21:22:05
The result was Keep per consensus, whilst this article strictly speaking falls a little short of the WP:NOTE guideline it meets the core policy of WP:V and as no guidelines regards student organizations yet exist I'm going with the clear consensus to Keep for now. RMHED (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable Students' Union. Most, if not all, of the information in this article is already available in the main article. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources. Fails WP:N again, per the Wikiproject Universities article guidelines (sub-articles, student life), which states "...per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments should almost never have their own article" (though note that this is not yet a solid policy, but a suggestion for one). TheIslander 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Snowolf How can I help? 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable Students' Union. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources. Fails WP:N again, per the Wikiproject Universities article guidelines (sub-articles, student life), which states "...per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments should almost never have their own article" (though note that this is not yet a solid policy, but a suggestion for one). Article also has very, very little infotmation, none of which is particularly notable enough to be merged with the parent article, University of Winchester. TheIslander 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus and nominators desire to withdraw and possibly relist individually. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw this AfD and I will break them apart to have them considered individually. How do I formally request that? Justinm1978 (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being one of several people to sign onto the articles of incorporation for a sorority is not notable. This article's sources are only from the sorority, and no solid evidence for notability outside of the sorority is given. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Note: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]
Strongest Keep Bad faith nomination on Justin's part. See the notability guideline. Should have made people separately instead of all of the founders, like he did with Alpha Kappa Alpha's founders as well as Delta Sigma Theta's fouders. Also, Justin's reference to an above comment made by HistoricDST should be disregarded since HistoricDST is a newcomer [4]. Thus, BITE also applies on the part of Justin. He is also thinking about nominating the NPHC founders for deletion, see this and this. However, I think this AFD should be disregarded because 1.) Wikipedia is not censored 2.)ignore all rules applies here. You can Google the people and find that they are notable, and not just a beginning star or anything about that. 3.) I am sorry that Delta Sigma Theta doesn't publish their founders biographies online. 4.) Most importantly: If founders of organizations, such as the NPHC are deleted, then founders of other organizations need to be deleted such as Eagle Scout founders, etc. I personally feel that since Justin is POV pushing for Alpha Phi Omega and making points to delete all other fraternities and sororities founders, such as making CU cases to people who disagree with his viewpoints. Making edits to other articles only restricted to Title XI states that this is a social sorority and not a service sorority[5], [6], some without edit summaries: [7], [8], [9], etc, without the consensus of other editors. By the way, he did not raise objection to the notability of the founders on Alpha Kappa Alpha as well as Delta Sigma Theta's talk pages without the consensus of other editors who are working on the article which in my personal opinion is very rude. After this AfD is close, you will be guaranteed that there will be an arbitration case as a result of this, because this is not fair. I am very angry that administrators as well as editors are allowing this POV-pushing to the point of censoring very important founders who have given back to the African-American community to occur. And, yes, I know that this is an Afd, but if you were in my shoes, and worked very hard to make African-American founding members of an organization and another person's MO is to delete ALL OF THE ARTICLES THAT YOU HAVE WORKED ON WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION, let's see what your reaction is. Miranda 08:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect the work of the editors who have been writing these articles, and I honor the role of this and similar fraternal groups in developing education in a restrictive environment, but it still does not mean that all of the individual people are individually notable. And as for the evident hostility between two groups of editors--they should keep it out of AfD. We are here to discuss the articles. If there are others that might not be notable,we can look at them if they are nominated. DGG (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus, whilst this article strictly speaking falls short of the WP:NOTE guideline it meets the core policy of WP:V and as no guidelines regards student organizations yet exist I'm going with the consensus to Keep for now. RMHED (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable Students' Union. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources. Fails WP:N again, per the Wikiproject Universities article guidelines (sub-articles, student life), which states "...per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments should almost never have their own article" (though note that this is not yet a solid policy, but a suggestion for one). TheIslander 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Xoloz (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Worldwide Business Research and related. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT.
The result was Keep. Snowolf How can I help? 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable Students' Union. Article fails WP:N, as it fails to link to external, independant sources (with the sole exception to point out which BUSA awards have been won, which is not at all unique or notable for this union, as many will win BUSA awards often). Fails WP:N again, per the Wikiproject Universities article guidelines (sub-articles, student life), which states "...per WP:ORG, student unions/organizations/governments should almost never have their own article" (though note that this is not yet a solid policy, but a suggestion for one). TheIslander 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Solumeiras talk 20:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article violates WP:CORP and WP:NPOV. It does not cite independent sources. This is pure commercial promotion. Iterator12n Talk 19:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable biography TheEgyptian (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 07:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research not cited to reliable sources. Content is entirely in-universe plot summary with no assertion of real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus, with no prejudice against some of these articles being immediately relisted individually or merged. It is unlikely that these topics can be given due care and attention in a mass deletion discussion and some of these individuals appear to be notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being one of 20 people to sign onto a article of incorporation for a sorority is not notable. This article's sources are only from the sorority, and no solid evidence for notability outside of the sorority is given. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Note: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]
Delete not notable Jake the Editor Man (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Let's just delete the sorority too? I have worked very hard on these articles, and you are disrupting the encyclopedia in deleting these? Fuck, let's just delete Alpha Phi Alpha's founders too. I am out of here. This is a waste of my fucking time. Miranda 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved personal attack to Talk page. Please keep this page free of disruptions, and take your issues to there. Justinm1978 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 07:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth a standalone article, original research and neologism. Redirect to pro-ana perhaps. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete with no bias toward recreation should reliable third party sources be found to verify notability. The debate on this page, however, does point to the need to better clarify what we mean be reliable sources and notability when dealing with editor who are not regulars on wikipedia - the process can be confusing at times. Pastordavid (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Original PROD reasoning was "This article's claim of notability was unable to be verified after attempting to locate reliable secondary sources. Please cite sources or this article will be deleted." Article was then prodded again "as a non-notable internet forum of limited scope". There also seem to be conflict of interest issues at work here. – PeeJay 18:45, 7 December 2007 (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)) . |
Ok, perhaps you could explain what notability is then. Or, is it more likely that, given you are Americans, you cannot see notability unless it had oil attached to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.179.13 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would only be a 'personal attack' if you had been called 'an american'; the term used was 'americans' and is thus not personal. Can I have the pedant's shield now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.232.180 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit odd suggesting that notability cannot be verified. Look at the links, citations, references in media and perhaps also consider the alternative sites offering similar coverage. If you are suggesting that rugby is not notable in Wales and that within that Gwladrugby.com is not notable as the premier Welsh rugby community then I suggest that you are not entirely objective and some moderation might be required. Constructive criticism as to structure of the content is welcome I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.103.146 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not familiar with the way you deal with commenting on pages like this one so HTH... While I can understand that to those of you not familiar with Gwlad, its notability is hard to establish, I'd also point out that by the site's very nature it is likely that, while meeting the spirit of them, its notability will be impossible to establish according to your normal guidelines. Newspapers are not in the habit, for example, of crediting sources when to do so would make it apparent that the resulting articles are simply rehashes of someone elses content. Sites (such as the BBC's website) are likely to actively avoid mention of or credit to a site such as Gwlad when they own and run another competing (but far less well-regarded) site themselves. It is probably also beneficial to Gwlad that it can, to some degree, "fly beneath the radar", as that way it is less likely to be overrun with trolls following controversial events concerning Welsh Rugby. However, to those "in the know", there is no question that the site is indeed notable -- to have the chairman of the Welsh Rugby Union sign up to the site and agree to answer fans' questions on a particularly controversial subject, for example, as has happened (the equivalent of having the CEO of the NFL come on to a US fan site, I guess), or to be frequented by various semi-anonymous ex-international players, is surely a sign of that. I think that must make it a candidate for the application of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules as far as the notability *guidelines* go. As a user of the site, however, I think I might prefer that you ignore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.160.11 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and assume good faith? Why don't you give people a chance to find the sauces they need?
Eh? Seems inconsistent. You have pages on some of the most obscure bands, offshoot bands and artists one could care (or not) to ever hear on Wikipedia. Other than connections, spectacularly un-notable. Gwlad isn't notable for popularity, it's that it's at the forefront of a national sport in terms of breaking news, opinion and knowledge. I think you should perhaps question the motivation of the original deletion proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.103.146 (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect a connection between the dissentors in this matter. The original opponent clearly appears to be a gog toe-baller, With an agenda. I'd cite conflict of interests in this suggestion for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.134.221 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
December 2007 (UTC)
"things are notable if they are covered by reliable, independent sources. --Dhartung" ??? WTF? Okay so this is your game and these are your rules, but FFS mun, get a grip. The relevance of Gwl@d as a social community transcends the strict limitations which are applied if you think Facebook is all there is to social networking. Lurk on Gwl@d for a while and see what actually goes on. Newboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.253.253 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted by Cupking13: Hi (sorry to butt in her, but I just wanted to add that I'm currently trying to address this particular point. Whether my writing style is still turgid, I'm not best placed to answer).
Despite the article's assertions of notability, its Alexa rank is just short of two million, which is outrageously scanty. Many of the references are to websites and not to reliable sources, and of the two that do, one does not in fact mention this website, and the other cites it as the source of a petition drive. The anon IP defenders would have better success finding genuine procedural grounds upon which to keep this article, instead of attacking the nom. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V. RGTraynor 00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it would still be 'spam' but 'OK spam' there ? Strange place indeed Wikipedia. Thanks for indicating that such an entry *does* have relevance/acceptability somewhere on part of Wikipedia though. I wonder if it also becomes notable there (or slightly notable). It either is or isn't.
PeeJay, please make your mind up what it is you believe is wrong (yeah ! that too! and that!) - I believe you have taken the response(s) to your original nomination for delete quite personally - not what one would expect from an editor as distinguished and as disinterested (neutral) as yourself.
Gwlad has decided to remove itself from Wikipedia as Wikipedia is shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.21.236 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be written in a sterile nature compared to what was originally composed for the Gwlad entry, but in the light of the link provided above, an entry here is justified. There may be few external references on the current Gwlad entry, but as was stated before, few journalists (who get paid for their copy) are likely to credit an anonymous website as their source. Notability is barely possible under these circumstances, yet there are references.Bluebook944 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Katy French. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a biographaphical article seemingly only created because the person has recently deceased. There is very little other information online about her, save for the recent news stories concerning the tragedy. Brochco (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 02:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted because it is breaking WP:CRYSTAL. There are no rule changes or announced schedule changes, so therefore there is nothing to report. There are 4 seasons between now and 2012, so it is too far in the future to be notable. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i take your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter-27 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
middle school stub with no refs, and no assertion of notability. The most frequent edits to the page are vandalism, but nothing constructive. Arthurrh (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A group focusing on sharing information on energy related subjects, and climate change. The group seems non notable. There are no external links. 12 google results, most to wikispaces. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine - banged to rights! Happy if you delete it.....thanks 19:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs)
The result was keep withdrawn after radical rewrite of the article. `'Míkka>t 23:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the article was tagged as "unencyclopedic" since November. No encyclopedic references. Original research. `'Míkka>t 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, unsourced neologism for a few drinks somebody made up one day. Prod removed by original author. --Onorem♠Dil 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, until such time as there are sources to assert notability. Pastordavid (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online game; no third-party sources to establish notability. De-prodded with promise of more content, but none came. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was nominated in 2/2/2006, when titled Gaelic punk, with the result of No Consensus. This hasn't gained any reliable, independent direct sources since that date. There are mentions of punk music in the Gaelic language when The Scotsman talks about Mill a h-Uile Rud (who are described as "a Seattle-based band who sing in Scots Gaelic") or Oi Polloi (who are described as "an anarcho-punk band from Scotland"), but no sustained information on a credible music style which goes by the name of Gaelic Punk, and especially Scottish Gaelic Punk. This reads like an unsourced piece of Original research. This article doesn't meet the basic criteria of WP:N, nor of WP:Music. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete unencyclopedic. 1 != 2 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#IINFO. Just because this musician has given few concerts and has shyed away from the public view doesn't make this list worthy of inclusion. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. A source has been provided to verify a pretty notable claim. Pastordavid (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notablity not asserted as per WP:N, inadequate third party references. Amnewsboy (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable junior hockey player who has yet to pay professionally and thus fails to meet WP:N. Has not had any notable achievements that might be able to squeek him in through another door. Can be readded when/if he ever plays professionally. Player has not even been drafted even though he is past the drafting age. Djsasso (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High probability of a hoax. The only references on Google are to the Wikipedia article. User who created the article has not responded to requests for evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Maynard Friedman (talk • contribs) 2007/12/07 14:12:58
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic format; no sources referenced AL2TB Gab or Tab 04:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the article fails to meet:
Suggestion: I have created a new article titled: Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia, which I suggest replace this one. It is largely based on the Expert Testimony by French professor Renaud de la Brosse for the Prosecution at the ICTY trial of Slobodan Milosevic on the role of media in inciting war crimes. Not only is it based on comprehensive material on the specific topic of Serb propaganda during the war by a noted scholar on the subject (though not peer reviewed and created specifically for the Prosecution), in my opinion, the article is also written in a much more NPOV way. I suggest that we delete the current "Serb propaganda" article, reroute it to the new article and then continue building on that. It would definately have a less controversial starting point and would be easier to source. Comments?Osli73 (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commenet
The article is substantially improved. The sources are the International court for war crimes verdicts related to propaganda campaign by Serb leadership. Other sources are also relaible per WP:RS, and there are also a few video links as an example of the most bizzar propaganda activities by Serbian national television such as:
For more information about propaganda campaign during the Bosnian war read these:
Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Insuffient links. Article leads nowhere. Metal Head (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this person have any notability independent from Blazin' Squad? Nothing here suggests that he does, but I don't know enough about the subject. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, the arguments based in policy and guidelines are much stronger than the ones based on pure opinion without basis in policy nor guideline. --Maxim(talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that a junior hockey team season is notable, or at least in the excessive detail as this. Flibirigit (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, consensus is clear to keep this article but divided between either making this page a disambiguation page or merging and redirecting the other two pages to this one. Neither of these options require deletion and discussion should continue to reach a consensus on what to do. Davewild (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is completely redundant as it just duplicates the content of Cartoon Wars Part I and Cartoon Wars Part II merging them into one article. Section by section it can be seen that everything present in the article is present somewhere else.
There is an argument that the single page is more appropriate than the two individual pages however other South Park episodes in multipart arcs have there own pages, see Imaginationland, Imaginationland Episode II, Imaginationland Episode III, Cartman's Mom Is a Dirty Slut, Cartman's Mom Is Still a Dirty Slut, Go God Go, Go God Go XII, Do the Handicapped Go to Hell? and Probably (South Park) as some examples. There was a discussion on merging the pages here but it seems to have petered out about a month ago. In the absence of any consensus to merge it seems silly to have all three articles. Guest9999 (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, but delete the two seperate articles and keep the merged one. I've argued this continually on the talk pages for the original articles. I think it makes much more sense to have one article for a two-part episode than having two articles with the exact same information except for the plot description. I've also argued this for Go God Go/Go God Go XII and Imaginationland/Imaginationland Episode II/Imaginationland Episode III.--Swellman (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is about the worst I've ever seen on wikipedia. The entire plot summary is unsourced and seems to be written by one person. In addition, it's entirely their opinion, not actual fact. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to disambiguation per the Who Shot Mr. Burns? page. The disambiguation options would be the South Park episodes Cartoon Wars Part I and Cartoon Wars Part II as well as the real-world Mohammad cartoons controversy (Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewlp1991 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No notability. Being editor of a magazine does not automatically make you notable, and there is no indication that this person is well known. Fails WP:BIO Fram (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Minor characters in 24. WP:POINTy AfD nomination notwithstanding, without reliable sources there is no evidence of real-world notability. Pastordavid (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a test case for how long an article needs to be tagged as unrefrnced before the article is deleted for not being refrenced. In this case due to the article being unrefrenced notabiliy of the aticle in the wider in-universe of the show cannot be assertained and nor can it be assertained for outside the in-universe of the show. The page contains alot of non-notable cruft such as "background information." Some of the information contained in the "background information" cannot be assertained from the show. The article also mainly reads like a polt summary which violates notability guidelines wih regards to fiction. Which states "Articles must not soley be a plot summary". I personally favour the merging of this character with the Minor characters in 24 page, but would like to go through this procedure to identify weather the problems with article means it needs deleting or weather merging is the correct form of action. Lucy-marie (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep based on what arguments above?--79.74.132.117 (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted, A7. —Random832 14:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not descriptive, person has little notability other than the fact he has a degree. Rufus843 (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please explain why he is not significant--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not significant. Rufus843 (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Mercury 03:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of Notability. Article has previously passed an AfD for advertisin, though in my oppinion it still reads like an advertisment. Taemyr (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Notability has been asserted after nomination of article. Taemyr (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to go against WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV - (WP:UNDUE section -- "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small ... minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia"). Fails WP:V, WP:OR - there are some references but they are of dubious reliability and they include a website (which only fetches 215 google hits mind you) of one of the non-notable claimants to Hawaii. This article itself seems to be the most notable part of the legal debate over Hawaii.
At best, it could be merged with Hawaiian sovereignty movement (although that article itself has its problems). --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ther esult was Delete --JForget 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised when this article came my way, from what I read it looks more like a directory of fan films based on the Star Wars series than anything else, maybe to the point of promoting them. Now Star Wars is obviously notable but these fan films don't appear notable at all, from my perspective this list provides absolutely no encyclopedic value whatsoever and it has the potential of eventually growing out of control (who's to say how many Star Wars fanfic is created yearly on America alone?). So based on what Wikipedia is not I believe this article/list should be deleted under the basis that Wikipedia is not paper, a undiscriminate collection of information or a directory. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A player in a third-tier football league, no independent sources. The only source is a directory of player stats and does not cover the (scant) biographical detail found here. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope Town District Council is the district council of Hope Town. You guessed that, didn't you? You'll be able to guess pretty much everything else in this article as well, apart from the (uncited) name checks. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is currently very little by the way of bahamian government information on the wikipedia. We should encourage it as much as possible. I have added references, external links and wikified the article as best I can, but it need the wrok of an expert. Fosnez (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as the article was nothing but a succession of copyright violations, concatenated together. Uncle G (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperlocal restaurant. loaded with copyvios and frankly WP:NN Toddst1 (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD G11, Blantant Advertising and CSD A7 as failing to prove notability - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Berontak zine[edit]
Not notable enough, conflict of interest (author is the owner), advertising (author spammed Wikipedia with links to the webzine). Mushroom (Talk) 09:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Analytical Marxism, which is compatible with the "not notable" opinions for deletion expressed here. Sandstein (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] September Group[edit]
Claimed group of somewhat known persons but are we shure it exists for real or is it just some friends invinting other friends like a biannual poker game? A cigarclub is not more notable just because its members unless some deeds are done on itself or it has other qualifications. Skull and Bones is a good examle of such entity. September group is its opposite. Boongoman (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep with nomination withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] One Night Only (Indie pop band)[edit]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] LG U8380[edit]Non-notable product. Completely unreferenced article. Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. Mainstream phones have few references other than reviews and self-published fan sites, so it will be hard to find quality sources to support an article. Mikeblas (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 07:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Rex Duis[edit]I don't think the achievements listed are notable, and they are not referenced dramatic (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasDelete non-notable politican. →AzaToth 16:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Michael Wissot[edit]
WP:NN Unelected politician. Only pub able to be cited was an op-ed piece. Toddst1 (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted, WP:CSD G11, obvious spam, entirely unreferenced article promoting a commercial product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Crew Management System[edit]
Delete and SALT - Blatant advertising for a nn software package. This article has already been speedily deleted 5 times over the course of 2 weeks by 3 different admins. It just gets re-created. Mayalld (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and redirect, already listed at List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Pastordavid (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Journey to the Rock[edit]
Fancruft, unreferenced, little or no contextual material. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 07:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of internet Go servers[edit]
Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links as per WP:EL. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages as per WP:NOT#DIR Anshuk (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Vonesper[edit]Article's content is a mess, consisting of pieces of other articles as well as patent nonsense. (The references are all about Green Day, save for a non-existent DeRogatis book.) A band of this name seems to exist, but is not on a major label, etc (has no notability - might justify speedy deletion.) -- ChrisB (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|