The result was delete. Sr13 03:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable attorney related to marginally notable people. Corvus cornix 23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bucketsofg 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible non notable person, asserts some notability but gives, but provides no sources. Notability tag has been up for 8 months. Daniel J. Leivick 23:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. To Callelinea- Bring the article to deletion review after you find references in your trip to Cuba (but even then, the subject might not have sufficient notability). Sr13 04:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable former Congressional aide and current genealogist related to marginally notable people. Corvus cornix 23:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 05:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person related to notable people. Corvus cornix 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. To Callelinea- Bring the article to deletion review after you find references in your trip to Cuba (but even then, the subject might not have sufficient notability). Sr13 03:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable vinegar factory owned by a person who is also not notable but is related to people who are noted. Corvus cornix 23:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: more info and references added. Callelinea 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. To Callelinea- Bring the article to deletion review after you find references in your trip to Cuba (but even then, the subject might not have sufficient notability). Sr13 03:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person related to notable people. Corvus cornix 23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. To Callelinea- Bring the article to deletion review after you find references in your trip to Cuba. Sr13 03:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable contractor who happens to be related to possibly notable people. Corvus cornix 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 05:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable; no references quoted to back article up. VTSPOWER 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WaltonOne 14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company. I replaced the speedy tag with a prod tag, and the prod tag was then removed because the article was referenced, even though it was only to primary sources, and it was 'doing no harm', which is irrelevent. J Milburn 23:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 05:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a listing of mentionings of "aether" in random video games and films. Trivial. Things like "plasma" or "hyper-speed" in popular culture could easily be made too. Nearly all science-fiction books/films/TV shows would have things like this mentioned in them. Bulldog123 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 20:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May had a brief but now already forgotten career on Big Brother but as a porn actress, this is where she fail on notability as per WP:PORNBIO Dr Tobias Funke 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 18:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an incorrect name for the Minnesota Wrecking Crew which already has it's own article. The info in this article could easily be merged into Brock Lesnar or Minnesota Wrecking Crew and due to the fact that this wrestling stable is several years old and defunct, it is unlikely to get much more information to begin with. I recommend it be deleted and the info totally erased or merged into one of the two articles mentioned above. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 19:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My prod was deleted but with no improvement in the article - read not telling us why this is a notable fan group - only a UW-M info box was added. A recent prod of mine for the same type of group at another college (I think it was Nova Nation but don't quote me) was prod'd and deleted and for the same reason, I prod'd this one. College hockey season lasts for a very short time and even if these fans win the best fans award by the NCAA, it is still not worthy of a stand alone article. At best, it should be incorporated someway into a UW-M article either in the sports section of the school's page or the team page. Postcard Cathy 22:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep all. It might be better to list separately, as Amarkov mentions, to be able to concentrate more on each particular article instead of a bunch all at once. Majorly (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are fan/gamecruft and violate the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines in that they are inappropriately detailed game guide content. Plus, they have severe problems with citing sources and being verifiable. Much of this comes from playing the game and would be impossible to reference properly. What little is referenced for the most part comes from a single, unreliable source. These articles are unsalvageable, and should be deleted. Andre (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as spam/advertising under G11. Spartaz Humbug! 23:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article that appears to have been written to advertise a specific issue of a magazine, and whose subject could easily have been mentioned in its existing article Paul20070 22:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to KEEP JodyB talk 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Sami and EJ are not and have never been a couple. At the moment only supercouples seem to have their own pages and whilst there is no denying that EJ and Sami have some support amongst the fans, they are not actually a couple. Even if they were Wikipedia is not the place to list every popular couple on a show, only the particularly notable ones, which Sami and EJ are not (particularly as EJ has only been on the show for a year). Magical mia 22:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, this article does provide a Cultural impact section, in which can be expanded on. I'm not a fan of this couple. I do, however, see that this article is better referenced and lower in plot summary than some other soap opera couple articles that I will be working on improving while here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summary which can always be edited down is not a good enough reason to delete this article, which is also referenced. Flyer22 05:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The storyline is naturally addressed. And a Cultural impact section of the couple can be addressed in articles such as these, as it is with this article... specifically about this couple's popularity and or controversy. It would be redundant to have a Cultural impact section regarding a couple, for instance, mentioned within the characters of that couple's articles. Also, this type of couple, such as EJ and Sami, causes edit warring more so than a typical popular couple, because this couple has a rival couple, and adding certain details in Sami's article regarding EJ, or adding certain details in EJ's article regarding Sami...can result in a tiresome edit war between the rival fan-bases, more so than usual. The format of this article can always be improved. Flyer22 03:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the comment about the duplication between the character pages and the couple page, I agree that the individual character pages should be updated to remove reference to the history included in the couple page with a re-direction to the couple page. Radiantbutterfly 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge & redirect to Tommy Tucker (baseball player). I have already merged the two articles & changed the nominated article to a redirect page (non-admin closure). — Caknuck 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already a page created for this player. Tommy Tucker (baseball player) Neonblak 21:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep JodyB talk 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like hoax: no references, no google hits Alex Bakharev 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus; hard to judge with so many anons and SPA's with such slanted opinions. Sr13 05:00, 7 July 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)) . |
Maybe delete it in six months, then ? He may yet become an internet phenomenon, despite the language barrier! Who can tell how the future history will work out ? Who had heard of Grace Darling the next day ? Wouldn't it be great if the little dutch boy who stuck his finger in the dyke was remembered by name ? Almost certainly not Hans Brinker ! IMHO WP:HERO guidelines like WP:PORNBIO would be great for the public good ! 195.137.93.171 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there are notable biographies for Chuck Norris and Randy Constan ? Comments on [8] are already making references to these guys. 195.137.93.171 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this page! There are all sorts of useless crap on here - this guy braved his life and who knows what could have happened if he hadn't nutted the guy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nony88 (talk • contribs) — Nony88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This is absolutely not media hype, it reflects the black humour which real and virtual communities use to reinforce those things which they hold in common at times of stress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.111.137.26 (talk • contribs).
The UK Prime Minister noted the response by the "British Public" who were not going to accept attacks on their way of life during Prime Minister's Questions on June 4th, 2007 - with John Smeaton being held as the first example of this behaviour occuring. It is definitely notable with the possible future backlash that may occur. 82.9.61.225 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment As I said before, I think a merger of the encyclopedic content into the Glasgow attack article would be appropriate, but he's not worth an individual biography for this one incident. Just because The Sun describes him as an hero doesn't mean he's notable enough for an article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pmendham 14:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
139.133.7.38 10:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
saintmarkpeth 11:14, July 6 2007 (UTC) — saint_markperth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
THE CRITERIA
. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If we take the original interviews as primary sources, then it is clearly demonstratable that there have been a number of secondary newspaper, internet, radio and television articles, and that John Smeaton should be considered notable on this measure
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Even if the depth of coverage were to be deemed 'not substantial'. which I personally feel would be incorrect, there exist multiple independent sources that have been cited, and these continue to grow. I don't feel that anyone could argue thatthe coverage is 'trivial'.
The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. I am sure it is only a matter of time before we are reading the John Smeaton biography, no doubt entitled "We'll set aboot ye" and serialised prior to publication in one of the redtops.
The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. Scotland's First Minister has already assured the country that the heroes from Glasgow Airport - including John Smeaton - will receive appropriate honours.
The person has demonstrable wide name recognition I think that in this case, demonstrable wide name recognition is undeniable. Try it - I'm sure if you ask a number of people who John Smeaton is, the majority will mention he is a baggage handler at Glasgow airport rather than a notable 18th century civil engineer
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. That John Smeaton made a widely recognised contribution is in no doubt. I'm not sure that any of us could claim at this time to be able to state with certainty that his contributiion will NOT become part of the enduring historical record. My own inclination is that it will, much like Todd Beamer's "Let's roll" or the actions of Mayor Giuliani after the 9/11 attacks
Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products I have to say, this issue causes me the most distress. We sit and discuss John Smeaton's merits for inclusion in Wikipedia based on his heroic conduct, his forthright interviews and his burgeoning cult status during and following the terrorist attacks on the airport where he worked. However, once he signs the well-nigh inevitable Irn Bru promotional deal, then no more discussion is necessary. Doesn't seem right somehow.
Given that the Criteria for Notability state "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards", I would say by virtue of the fact John Smeaton meets so many of them the article is not a candidate for deletion. two other points to consider are that other less-notable people have an entry, so why shouldn't he, and secondly that the argument that 'he won't be remembered in a year' is a spurious one. Having read both What Wikipedia is and What Wikipedia is not, I can see no grounds for this being a valid argument for deletion. An encyclopedia is after all a repository of knowledge, often of knowledge that may otherwise be forgotten. 80.80.187.181 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Sr13 06:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This "Model/Actress" has done nothing notable to warrant her own Wikipage. All she has done is be eliminated from two reality shows. Additionally, this article does not cite a single source to back any of its claims. I fail to see how this article passes WP:BIO) Gamer83 21:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nandesuka 12:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia articles are not collections of loosely-associated topics. Similar to the many, many articles deleted because they share a common word or words in the title, the items on this list have no relationship to one another beyond the author's happening to pick the same two words as a subtitle. They are drawn from multiple styles of "books" (including fiction books, textbooks, plays, poems, "erotic fiction" and anthologies) from across disparate centuries, have dissimilar protagonists, do not share the same "virtue" and the virtue does not garner the same reward. This list tells us nothing about the fiction or the real world. Keep arguments from the first AFD are incredibly poor, including among others such unpersuasive reasons as "interesting" and "well-written." Otto4711 21:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge JodyB talk 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism (this version of the law found only on one web site). If it sticks around, we can add it later. Phaunt 08:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, notability not asserted, no sources. NawlinWiki 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New production with no substantial claim of notability, and no third-party reliable sources cited. I had tagged with ((prod)) but page creator deprodded. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There'll be plenty of third party sources when the play is performed at the end of the month for Pride Festival —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tartimarty (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case would you like me to temporarily remove it? Tartimarty 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted (WP:CSD#A7) by Anthony Appleyard. WODUP 23:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Small, local, defunct clothing manufacturer. No assertion of notability, no sources. Ford MF 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete JodyB talk 20:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Centennial Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) No sources, been put up for speedy deletion twice, but I restored it after I got a message that made me think that maybe it's notable enough. Community consensus is better in this case. Evilclown93(talk) 20:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for highlighting this I will remember this, Evilclown93,
No your note about awards, for all concern, there are so many awardees each year, so should all of them come to WIKI to have a piece of the pie. What sort of ideology are you representing, Democracy? WIKI is not about democracy either. Please take your agendas else where to advertise.
2. Being featured in the National Library Board, we have been featured and invited on multiple occasions by our PM for closed door discussions lately, to help resturcture some of the Entrepreneural guidelines, do I also qualify to be put here. DO NOT throw name like the president of Singapore here and the National Library board here and expect that you will be elevated to some new level of being. WIKI is not about making you a hero, if we condone this, then everyone who shook the hand of the president of the united states with a photo will need a spot here on WIKI including my father and my mom, who incidentally did just that! You want to advertise your site, take it else where. To Evil Clown, if you have noticed, he has taken the opportunity to put links of ALL HIS related site on the page, and made attempts to quickly index that information on GOOGLE, further proving that this is strictly for SEO. I recommend the action of SPEEDY DELETION.
3. We made several calls to NLB to enquire about this heritage thing, no one knows..... if this is meant for our heritage, it should be known to as many people as possible, and I was passed around all morning from one department to the next and they no clue what this is about.
Based on your statement, you claimed that we abuse Wikipedia for our own commercial gains. You also claimed that we made attempts to quickly index the information on Google. On other articles, you also claimed of traffic spikes on Alexa. Seriously, Wikipedia did send people to our site. But which article don't? Also, on what evidence you have to show that we index the information on Google? As for Alexa, that's just our estimated traffic pattern. End of the day, it is well-known that Google has its own algorithm for indexing and that Alexa lacks of accuracy due to browser dependence. It seems that you just taking pot-shots to keep us busy in giving our evidence and presenting our case. However, the ball is back in your court now - What's evidence do you have for whatever you had claimed? For example, you claimed that certain staffs of NLB don't know about the archiving of websites. While there may be possibility that I lied, there is possibility that the archiving is known to just a department which they didn't know was handling the project. It is of no surprise in large organisations where disparate departments don't really know who does what. Still, I have the email for this and as mentioned, I will present it as an evidence to wiki admins if necessary.
While you claimed to be helping Wikipedia, your actions do not seems to be so. And while you claimed that it is because you want people to know the truth, the previous edits were in the largely in nature of malicious purposes. The difference between "THIS PROVIDER HAS MOVED 3 TIMES!" and "Previous Locations of Pacific Centennial Group" is that the former is for spiteful purpose and the latter is for users to understand more and draw their own conclusion. I deleted your opinions on the article because it was not factual and doesn't have reasonable evidence. And if you claimed that you have the interests of Wikipedia at heart, you should help to cleanup the article or recommend for speedy deletion, and not taking law in your own hands. If you believe that we moved 3 times (we actually moved twice) or increased our prices, then do add them appropriately like "Previous Location" or "Previous Packages & Pricing".
I seen how MSJapan, Evilclown and several other administrators work and their explanation were largely inline with the policies of Wikipedia. Evilclown made the decision that the article may be notable but because I'm a direct staff of the company, I maybe in conflict of interest. I could have lied on that so save that article, but I believe that honesty is far more important. If Wikipedia don't accept the article now and delete off, I will put it more effort to make it more notable and hopefully in the future, someone else would recognized us and put us up again.Sg wiki editor 17:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, here are an article which could resolve this situation - Resolving Dispute. I seek your co-operation in abiding to this official policy during your replies. Should you feel that the articles lack of certain information, I will be pleased to amend and include them with either citation or references from RS.
BTW also, we may still proceed to file a report to the police or engage a lawyer for those edits that was vandalized for malicious purpose. Since you claimed that it was not from you and was from your customers, I seek your co-operation to inform that customers of our course of action. However, if it was really from you, I hope that you could stop these nonsense. Seriously, a man must have courage to admit their wrongdoing. If wrong, then just apologize. Likewise, if after the police investigation has completed and the vandalism was not from you, I will issue an official apology with a reasonable compensation.
In short, I hope to settle this amicably, sincerely and honestly. Sg wiki editor 17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I had reasoned that being notable is about being recognized by the industry. While it maybe true that Pacific Centennial Group is recognized, by itself may not be sufficient to be listed. I came to this conclusion after reading a magazine and was looking through the advertisements. Each of the company has its importance in the industry they are in. However, it would be nuts if I say all of these companies will be recognized within in their own industry. For example, if we think about burgers - we think about McDonalds, Burger King or even White Castle. That is what most people will know about burgers. Would people care if there is a guy who is famous for grilling delicious burger? Will people have a difference opinion about burgers if this guy is gone?
- Second, I was thinking through the comments of some users. Would its article add value to the user? Did Pacific Centennial Group founded something? Invented something? Created something unique? Vastly improved the industry? Yes, it did win awards and maybe recognized by the National Library Board. But will that be relevant to someone who want to research about the virtual office industry of Singapore?
- Third, I'm a staff of Pacific Centennial Group. While my reasoning may have its merit, it is simply not wise (recommended) that I should edit this article. Even if I want to achieve neutrality, readers may be skeptic about the accuracy of the article and that defeat the entire purpose. Likewise I know that the article is created by the staffs of that company, I would certainly have some doubt about the accuracy and NPOV.
Eventually after these thoughts, if unless someone could prove otherwise (I would be glad though), I hope that the article to be removed within these few days. Also, while I might not really like the tone of this smartvirtualoffice user, I think some of his comments have certain merits and has successfully challenged my thoughts. But still, I do not condone his methods of vandalizing the article. Sg wiki editor 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dun think I need to say that much. Peter Tan Jun Long, you are not any where near as noble as you present yourself to be.
1. In Wiki, when we added our links as alternative, you could not stand that could you.
2. We feel you have vandalized WIKI, and would consider putting that up in a police report as well..
3. We feel you are a man with many double standards, especially when it comes to treatment. You think you run the Virtual Office Scene, think again. Regus and Servcorp with many offices worldwide does not have to win awards to be placed here.
Signature space with more offices around does not have a
4. ALL ADMINSTRATORS now want your site deleted, do you agree it needs to be?
That's why it should be deleted. Check out WP:COI. Evilclown93(talk) 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC).
You keep stressing how great the company is, we are arguing on very different terms.
2 ADMINISTRATORS have made their case to have your site deleted. This time, it is not ME who says delete and you still do not want to, that says a lot about you. While you took pot shots at us way back in 2006, no one agreed or disagreed with you, this time ADMINSTRATORS are telling you to delete. I may be adding fuel to the fire, but fact stands that you need to be deleted. I am sure you will want the last words on this and you will go into lengthy explaination as to why you are the best and need to be here because you won an award that was voted and INTERVIEWED by students who are naive and took a medal with SR Nathan, so what....
1) You add a link which doesn't relate to the article but just for the purpose of luring readers to your site. Anyway, you mentioned before that the links were from your customers and not from you. Now you said that it was you who added the links. Contradicting.
2) Feel free to put up a police report if you think it's necessary or valid.
3) When you mentioned double standard, in which circumstance did I show that I have such a behavior? Did I mentioned that my article should be placed up and other people's articles shouldn't be place? It seems that to you, deleting away your biased opinion is double-standard. I deleted because it is not factual. That's all. Also, I have never once in Wikipedia dispute your claims on your company, whether your parents shake hands with US President, or whatever.
4) Yes, most administrators feel that the article should be taken off. I never claimed that the company is great. I only present evidences that I believe the article has certain notable values and hopefully that the administrators could evaluate. Also, I never hide behind any other usernames or IP addresses to disguise my relationship with the company. As for Spirit of Enterprise, I think you have no clue on how it works. Companies are nominated for SOE award and are interviewed by tertiary students. SOE has a Board of Governors who determine whether if the company should win the award, and these Board of Governors includes experienced businessmen or professionals. Award winners are also co-determined by public voting too. And whether if we receive an award from Mr. SR Nathan, President of Singapore, it is just a factual statement (just like stating that our office is located in Robinson Road). We didn't spin any stories but I guess that my previous statement of "one of the leading..." may not be proper and feels a little advertorial. That is why I clean-up the article to be more factual and removed statements that I have no concrete evidences.
I'm not here to claim how noble I am. I'm not. All I trying to do is to place an article and present the evidences to show its notability. Throughout these times, I begin to read up on Wikipedia policies and try to figure whether if the article has complied with the given guidelines. The more I read the more it becomes clear that the article has both its merits and demerits. While I still believe that the article is notable and neutral (merits), after careful thoughts I feel that there were two critical issues - I'm the staff of the article's mentioned company (COI) and that the company may yet to become a valuable study in the field of virtual office industry (demerits). That's why even I think the article should be deleted, but in a more civil and analytical way.
Anyway, don't be that spiteful. If you really care for Wikipedia and wish to police around, do use the time to help clear up the loadful of articles that wait to be clean-up. Don't forget to add you name. Sg wiki editor 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets start with yours... --202.55.71.12 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Sr13 20:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article survived a prior AFD when List of Chicago Landmarks was less well developed. Now, that the List of Chicago Landmarks is a WP:FL it should be clear that a listing of the official Chicago Landmarks and National Historic Landmarks in Chicago, Illinois is the proper list for this topic. A quick read of WP:WIAFL should help one to understand why this page is not a good list. It constitutes WP:OR. The only source for this list is the editor who has posted his favorite buildings. There is no reason for anyone to post a list of their favorite buildings and pass them off as a list of landmarks. It is not (WP:NOT#OR) encyclopedic. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nominator as stated above. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of the more complete List of Chicago Landmarks. This page now has no useful information. Speciate 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 06:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article that solely consists of speculation about the future wealth of cities is not encyclopedic. If this information belongs anywhere on Wikipedia then it's as a link to an article about the *current* ranking of richest cities. It certainly doesn't deserve its own article, especially when it appears to be lifted from an uncited PricewaterhouseCoopers article. Hux 20:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 06:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chanllenged speedy deletion, (notability concerns) Evilclown93(talk) 20:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD G8. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally WP:OR TexasAndroid 19:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
on the grounds of not notable and WP:SPAM Sycarr 19:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These two comments were on the talk page, and should probably be counted as votes:
The result was Delete and protect as recreation of multiply-deleted article. Daniel Case 16:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Kenny McCormack, this article has been deleted and keeps coming back lots of times and deleted again and needs to be stopped from recreation. Dr Tobias Funke 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not take any clear hint why this person is notable and originally researchd. Dr Tobias Funke 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is more news journalist that is more famous and she is famous for this Bush thing, henceforth not notable at all. Dr Tobias Funke 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, I don't mind recreation, though. The subject is notable, but the article is unsourced so it's better to start again. Sr13 20:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have seen the original nomination, I had to remoninate this as the person who originall ynominated it has a good reason to only he is stupid to call himself a sockpuppet, I mean why not have a user call himself a wikipedia vandal
The reason is, not notable, vanity article, originally sourced and only 763 ghits. Also anybody can write an Autobiography these days and get it published. Dr Tobias Funke 19:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete due to unanimous consensus as unverifiable. Daniel Case 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable; can't find any independent sources Cordless Larry 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, insufficient notability with a lack of references. Sr13 20:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find any coverage of this band in reliable sources, at least not in English. Their notability is not really asserted (or barely asserted)--it's not even clear if they actually cut an album. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, neologism created by article author the day before he posted the article. NawlinWiki 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, have a heart. This concept is relevant and is going somewhere I assure you. It has been under discussion, by members of the political/technical community for sometime but lacked a name. Try and see past black and white orthodoxy and consider the relevancy and necessity of the principle itself. Thank you very much for your consideration hamilsizzle
First off, thank you everyone for your input on this. This is my very first wikipedia entry, so it's a great learning experience about the community and the platform.
Postcard Cathy: the idea cannot be discussed on Sajaya's page because it is not about Sanjaya, we just use his name. The wisdom of crowds principle, which is what makes wikipedia work, and is the same principle behind what makes google work, says that large groups of people with a diverse body of opinions are predisposed to make the wisest decisions. Which is how a site like wikipedia can be opened to anyone to add content and committed wikipedians like you an others add their thoughts and opinions to help shape the final product.
But sometimes people game the system. With google, the practice is called a google bomb. There has been no definition for gaming another crowd-wise system like online voting.
I work for a member of congress and I and a group of people in the democratic political community are working on ways to use crowd wisdom technologies for things like developing public policy or voting on which questions to answer in an online town hall. This is where what I'm calling the sanjaya effect comes in. This would be like google bombing, but not on google...an attempt to artificially affect the outcome for humorous purposes through the crowd voting for the worst option as opposed to the best option.
So If I had my boss the congressman doing an online townhall, and the crowd voted to ask him a question on a salacious topic instead of a relevant one (much like a adolescent prank call), then that would be the sanjaya effect.
Sanjaya was an american idol contestant who was voted by the audience to stay on the show precisely because he was awful, and not good (and so many people found it funny that they continued to vote him on to stay).
I don't care about getting my name on the net and have removed the part of the definition that referred to me. I do believe that this is a relevant definition and an easy an important way for people in politics to describe a phenomenon they should be wary of when introducing web 2.0 technologies into politics.
Thank you for your time and for your consideration of this page.
Daniel, understood. I will return with more references. Thank you for your assistance and your advice. --Hamilsizzle 13:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another name for this is market manipulation, but this is a very particular kind of manipulation (humor/nefarious) to a very particular kind of market (information). You guys are missing the forest for the trees here. I understand the need for references and will return.--Hamilsizzle 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 20:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No references cited, can't find any hint that this game even exists. Probable hoax. Tim! 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete due to unanimous consensus as hoax. Daniel Case 16:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete rubbish, but there is no speedy criterion which covers hoaxes. Tim! 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as spam. Should have been speedied originally, IMO. Daniel Case 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN record label. Spam/advert, doesn't state notability Lugnuts 18:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as non-notable television event per Kalathalan. Daniel Case 16:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written article about a 1 night event on Disney Channel. Not Notable enough to have its own article. All it is, is a new episode of 3 of their series with similar plots. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as nn and per previous speedy. Daniel Case 16:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a laudable effort, but no evidence for encyclopedic notability (no reliable independent sources, no hard facts like the number of members or the yearly budget). Note: A previous article at NESTO has been speedily deleted as "CSD A7 (not notable)" some months ago. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Pelzner. High on a tree 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article asserts significance of this chronological scheme, but doesn't show that it's important outside the work of St. Augustine, and doesn't provide evidence of its importance within Augustine's work. Searches on Google scholar turn up nothing useful, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't have an entry on this and doesn't mention it in the article on St. Augustine ([18]). Conte's History of Latin Literature doesn't mention the work this concept supposedly comes from (De catechizandis rudibus). Therefore, I don't think this conecept is notable, and I suspect there's a fair amount of original research in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete ck lostsword•T•C 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no evidence of notability. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nesto. Note: A previous article at NESTO has been speedily deleted as "CSD A7 (not notable)" some months ago.) High on a tree 18:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete ck lostsword•T•C 23:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. The creator's other contributions are adding links to spectralcalc.com (registered to GATS, Inc.) to dozens of pages, and the creator's name matches the company's COO, i.e. COI. Delete Han-Kwang 17:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable author. Prod tag removed by original author without comment. Delete'. DMG413 15:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Author certainly is notable. He has generated a significant amount of public awareness to the Off-Grid campaign in the UK - including BBC TV news & radio interviews in May 2007 - and he has indeed had a colourful career in the liberal arts. Nick Rosen is an award-winning producer and an esteemed journalist - I believe he wrote several articles on the dawn of the Internet for The Times newspaper in the early nineties. I respectfully suggest that this does indeed makes him notable. One has only to conduct a search for "Nick Rosen" on Google for verifiable sources. This link points to an article for the Daily Telegraph: [19] and an article by the Times Online [20].
I propose that I edit article is edited for neutrality, to remove any suggestion of self-advertisement. Thank you. Nightfly1 12:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not achieve WP:N. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability and is promotional. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability. Part of a series of articles written by User:Punkkiddy of Punktastic Recordings designed to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. aliasd·U·T 16:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My prod was contested since googling the poet gave the contester reason to believe the poet is notable. I disagree with that as a reason. One shouldn't have to google someone to figure out if they are notable or not. One should be able to read the article on the person at hand and see from that info that they are notable. This article has been around for a while and no one, not even the original author, has done anything to let us know that this guy is notable. They simply state he existed which IMHO is not wiki worthy. Unless the article is improved significantly before the time is up on this AFD, I say strong delete as unnotable with no sources. Postcard Cathy 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:N, also is unreferenced. Suspect label using WP as a platform for advertising. aliasd·U·T 16:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article written as an advertisement, and fails WP:N, also is unreferenced. aliasd·U·T 16:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical page, should really be a user page VTSPOWER 15:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Robert Stan as CSD:BIO. This one's a seventeen year old kid. Tagged it. Checking Robert Stanek.--Ispy1981 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again another non-notable album track which user:Superior1 refuses to allow to be redirected to the album it comes from. Corvus cornix 15:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well there aren't exactly guidelines on what warrants a song its own article. Superior1 06:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to withdraw this, if it's okay with everybody else, it was a single, though it's only obvious by reading the non-prose headers. Corvus cornix 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod (prodded by myself); recreated by Boriswiki (talk · contribs) from Google cache, which I took as a contest to the prod. I restored the history now, which also contains references (in the form of x-links).
The article reads like a resume. It does not establish notability of the subject. Most of numerous "references" do not discuss the subject of the article at all; rather, they serve as kind of "wikilinks". I could not find anything by Google which would indicate the subject's notability and distinguish him from numerous government officials and lecturers. At best, they indicate that the article is true [21], [22], [23]. Which, I'm afraid, is not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Duja► 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
personal feelings about Trump aside, let's just say they are not good, I don't feel this is worthy of a stand alone article and feel it is best covered as a side note (if it is covered at all) in the articles on Trump and Rosie. Postcard Cathy 14:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 15:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of the subject to establish whether or not this is notable. In any case, it's in need of a serious tidy, but that's not why I'm putting this to AfD. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#G12. The page was tagged for speedy deletion, and has been deleted.[24] The deleting administrator has not closed this AfD, so I am closing it, as it no longer needs to be open. Acalamari 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
does not appear to assert notability, but I don't know much about this topic so I figured I would not just prod/speedy it. Calliopejen1 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this could be a great article, it's currently nothing more than a list of lists, with a smattering of information that's duplicated in the lists and articles referred to. Should be deleted until someone writes an actual article about the subject. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as Original Research, prod was removed for reasons not at all related to the subject of the prod. am AfDing mostly as a way to handle this without it turning into a series of added and removed prods. Weak Delete Improbcat 13:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No organization can thrive in today’s world without its technical supports - but increasingly, actual business survival involves managing an accelerating, even forced, evolution of critical technical empowerments.
The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 12:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly non-notable painter and artist. All possible sources are in Czech, so I'm neutral. Anas talk? 13:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy kept on withdrawal of nomination and WP:SNOWBALL. Well done to all who worked on this. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this topic merits encyclopedic inclusion the current article is nothing but an advertisement for the John Deere Company. All references are to the company website and the article basically gives an overview of what products John Deere has to offer and gives a handy link to the company as well. The article, in its current form should be deleted unless someone can salvage it. I marked it as an ad almost a month ago and it has undergone no significant changes. IvoShandor 12:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -- would merge to Current characters of Neighbours, but there's nothing here to merge -- just a one-sentence article saying "Caleb Maloney is a character played by...". NawlinWiki 20:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - This is a minor character who will only be on the show for a short time. Kogsquinge 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snow delete. —« ANIMUM » 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article that makes rather extravagant claims. Unless these can be backed up this article should be removed.--Cronholm144 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent fake incident; no mention of accident in Aviation Safety Network or Airdisaster.com databases or any returns for Google searches. This diff claims 16 fatalities, but as in the article no source(s) are provided. Lipsticked Pig 06:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, it's just a copy-and-paste, no reason to let it stay for 5 days. Punkmorten 08:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete don't redirect; writing Karen Taylor (fictional character) to get a redirect to Nia Peeples is unlikely. Sr13 04:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE This is only a minor recurring character. Not notable per Wikipedia standards. Kogsquinge 23:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. This character appeared once, in April, and does not look likely to appear on the show again. Kogsquinge 01:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted on the grounds that no sources are cited (not even the mall's own website, if there is one). Also, there is a notability issue with this mall as it appears to be a standard mall. For this reason, I believe this article should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HoustonWeHaveAProblem (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 July 2007
The result was No consensus to delete, default is keep JodyB talk 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is little more than a PR rewrite describing the actions of a small group of people. Dakdakdak 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - notability established. Only delete argument is WP:JNN. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. This character will only be a short-term guest. Not notable per Wikipedia standards. A mention in Frazer Yeats and Ringo Brown would be enough. Kogsquinge 06:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Not notable. --Bill.matthews 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE As per above. Hardcore gamer 48 09:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Already renamed. NawlinWiki 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Simulation hypothesis --Sapphic 01:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all except those withdrawn by the nominator. —Kurykh 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:Philip Bailey (statistician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (nominator wishes to withdraw this nomination)
:Robert Brooke (statistician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (nominator wishes to withdraw this nomination)
--BlackJack | talk page 12:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character from obscure TV show. Gammondog 11:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 20:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable - politician running for a minor office. Trugster 10:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by Evilclown93 under A7 critera. --Hetar 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't assert notability well, no verification. east.718 09:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by Anthony Appleyard under CSD A7 criteria. --Hetar 23:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. WP:SPA creator removed ((db-bio)) tag. east.718 09:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Arguments for deletion cite possible WP:COI issues, which has been disputed if not refuted, and is not supported by evidence, and WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV issues, which can be handled by rewriting rather than deletion -- the move is a reasonable start on that. Arguments for keeping establish notability by means of press coverage, and discussions of usefulness where are really not to the point. Note that "merge" is a form of "keep", and a possible future merge can always be done without an AfD provided that there is consensus on the relevant talk page or pages. DES (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
08:18, 2 July 2007 Anthony Appleyard 09:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Wikipedia is not meant to be a soap box, but even a rich article about a past and current controversy can and should influence opinion despite being written from a NPOV. Slavery. Genocide. Human rights abuses. Cold hard numbers can speak volumes. Regarding the case of one detained educator, putting a face on one incident of worker abuse does not, in my opinion, cross the line from encyclopedic information source to advocacy. WP:SOAP allows as much, ". . .Of course, an article can report objectively about (advocacy etc), as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." The article, influenced by useful comments here has been heavily revised and moved to Katherine Phillips detention incident and should be deleted from simply Katherine Phillips (where it conflicts with a 17th century poet of the same name)User:Davidallenoliver I do need admin help with a redirect. Thanks 06:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Melanie Brown#Personal life. NawlinWiki 12:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic chap - was previously a redirect to Mel B, which I believe is no longer worth it Petesmiles 08:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect Keep Canley has done fine work in updating /- unless someone can be bothered to add > 1 line about him Kernel Saunters 12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted. enochlau (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seemigly non-notable. Has been deleted once before under notability guidelines. For a publishing company their site only lists 11 books. No news stories that I can locate, no evidence of any notability. Ben W Bell talk 07:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I call WP:BIO - Non-notable self advertisment Peter Rehse 07:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Conflict of interest; author's username = article name and he has 4 edits as of my writing this. I honestly can't tell, without references, whether this group is notable, but the burden of proof rests with the author. I am also nominating the following miscellany:
Shalom Hello 07:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete All. The consensus is clear. Those firms that may ber actually notable can have new articles written by editors not in violation of WP:COI. If any such editor wants any of these articels userfied for reference i will provide it. DES (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant COI by User:Danthony21 (presumably the David Anthony listed on 21 Ventures' management team), on 21 Ventures and its companies Dicklyon 06:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all about private companies funded by 21 Ventures (Or their product), and all were created by Danthony21:
The result was Merged and redirected to List of magical objects in Gargoyles. NawlinWiki 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is on a fictional object with no sources to establish real world significance. Jay32183 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 18:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant coi, self-promotion, and such Dicklyon 06:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't recall that an individual volumes of manga were notable. Article is entirely recaps of each chapter, a possible violation of WP:NOT. No reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that notable Aikido club - advertisement Peter Rehse 05:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was the numerical result would be "Delete". The arguments for deletion are a challenge to notability, and suggestions that the content would be better as part of other arguments, and an implicit suggestion of "undue weight". The notability arguments are refuted by the mention of the scholarly account, if not by the fame of the people involved. What remains is a good argument for merging, but not for deletion. but since no one was arguing for a merge per se that can not be the consensus result. So i am closing this as No Consensus. Note that a merge and redirect can be done at any time without an AfD. DES (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about Petrarch's last will and testament. Doesn't assert notability, and I don't think the will of a famous person is automatically an encyclopedic subject. First paragraph is copied verbatim from this website, without attribution; the rest seems to be copied from public domain sources, but I must admit some anxiety as to whether any text is copied from the Mommsen edition listed in the "reference" section. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is incredibly short and I see no possibility it could ever be explained. It needs to be merged with one of numerous bodybuilding articles. There's no reason for it to exist as a separate article. Numerous other articles probably already contain the same information, which is simply a sentence. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep. NawlinWiki 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is origional research and dictionary definition. No source after 4 years, and no encyclopediac content beyond definition. SefringleTalk 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merged and redirected to Hitman (series)#International Contract Agency (ICA). NawlinWiki 00:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly Original Research. The stuff that isn't is trivial and mentioned elsewhere DurinsBane87 04:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete ck lostsword•T•C 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nom - non-notable high school forum website. Fails WP:WEB. Lacks reliable sources. Rklawton 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a second nomination--still appears to be based 100% on WP:OR. Probably self-promotion. SESmith 04:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Keep arguments amount to "I like it", "Other stuff exists", and "its useful", none of them policy-based. delete arguments are policy based. If anons are discounted, the numerical consensus is also clear. DES (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a meandering list of entirely non-notable places to eat and places to drink reviewed by people who like to frequent them. The fact there's an area of town popular with foreign military can be summed up in one or two sentences on the relevant city page ShizuokaSensei 04:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it here
i think it should stay here or at least in the travel guide to Yokosuka as a guide of the nightlife district in yokosuka for forigers, also it is what wikipedia is all about and just listing the basics and not going into too much detail about the place and just giving the "pedia" of the place and to let people know whats there and if the want to got there or not. it is very basic in its words and understanding and also gives insight into what this bar district is. keep it here
If this battle to keep this article separate is doomed to be lost, why not add a section in the Yokosuka city article, for "The Honch" and redirect this article to that? Although from reading into the Honch, and reading the yokosuka article, I really do think it should be kept separate. 206.39.111.20 04:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a 'History' section, could use some help adding content. Hoping to make this article more 'encyclopedic' to meet Wiki standards. Hoping that the end result will just use the original article as a small subsection of the whole article. S. Hulce 05:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, even discounting my Delete entry below. NawlinWiki 20:28, 9 July 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)) . |
Not notable no references Dureo 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as TPB3D goes, I would prefer it be deleted as I originally established it and I also don't want it in here either anymore. Not to benefit an evil community that runs on ego rather than common sense, using rule after rule to attack great things. TPB3D has grown well beyond the significance you all require in here, but some of you are so jealous of a project like this that you don't realize what is being created. Stick with a dying product of Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 rather than a community created and will be permanently ongoing project such as TPB3D. This community doesn't need you guys either. There, now if this doesn't get you to kill tpb3d as a wiki in here and remove significant information, I don't know what will. Slickdude 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Both policy arguments nd numeric consensus favor deletion here. DES (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains little real information about the middle ages and the Middle Ages category contains all of the information in this page. This page is nothing more than a category listing middle age topics which the middle ages category already does. This page serves no real purpose. Wikidudeman (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, definitely meets WP:PROF after improvements. NawlinWiki 20:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy userfication is being contested by DGG. It seemed obvious to me that this was autobiographical in nature, but whatever the case, it's here now. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain Wafulz 04:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a brief guide , he has published 99 peer-reviewed article according to Web of Science. His most cited ones have received 1075,843,283,266 248 references--obvious recognition of notability by others in the field, WP:PROF. His h-index is 38,that is38 papers cited 38 or more times. Doesn't take access to Web of Science. Google Scholar lists 214 articles--some of them will be duplicates--giving 1139 & 997 references to the top two. Netkinetic marked it for deletion with the edit summary: "Sorry Steven, but you aren't notable enough for Wikipedia. Regards." DGG 19:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete ck lostsword•T•C 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe similar/identical articles have been speedy deleted before. Not much to explain here. Whatever is salvagable from this article is already covered in Hindutva, Hindu nationalism, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“ | After my sixteenth birthday, I studied history at my aunt Alia's college; but not even learning could make me feel a part of this country devoid of midnight children, in which my fellow-students took out processions to demand a stricter, more Islamic society -proving that they had contrived to become the antitheses of students everywhere else on earth, by demanding more-rules-not-less. | ” |
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Biography; article about an unmemorable reality star on a show with low ratings Irk(talk) 22:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a local radio presenter. Article doesn't show how he's notable. No references/links. Reads like a CV. Aillema 01:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. TerriersFan 03:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable secondary school student radio broadcasting on a RSL. stripped of school related weblinks, the subject scores 148 Ghits, most of which bear no relationship to the subject at all. Ohconfucius 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the page and also the person who set the station up and currently runs it I want to assure you that this is a factual description of the radio station. As Bearcat states, OSCAR Radio is a regular broadcaster, it also happens to be seen as one of the best stations of its kind in the UK. In the world of UK school radio stations it was deemed the best one by the BBC when they did a trawl of school radio station in 2004, it is certainly the largest, with studios that most university stations would love to have. It has a good presence in the local community and plenty of people listen either on the internet or locally on the FM transmission. OSCAR Radio is seen as a good model for other schools to view and we get plenty of visits from schools interested in putting together their own radio stations. So keep Dfcf 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN musical. — MusicMaker 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep. NawlinWiki 00:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN musical. — MusicMaker 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as notability established. Please note this is a non-administrator close. The Evil Spartan 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN musical. Only holiday productions. Article is mostly advert-type review quotes. — MusicMaker 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears non-notable and is advertising and spammy in nature. Falls far short of the notability guideline. GDonato (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Changed to disambiguation page for the magazine (without link) and for Cruella de Vil. NawlinWiki 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable magazine, no references or sources. Contested prod. Videmus Omnia 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete ck lostsword•T•C 00:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious notability; likely conflict of interest (note the large number of external links). YechielMan 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article prod on 2007-06-21 as "Non notable band, fails WP:BAND". The band do have a record on Tent City [50], which is listed here [51] with their main acts, including Choking Victim, The Foamers and Antarctica Vs. The World. It appears that there may be reasonable doubt about a swift deletion, and a wider view may be in order SilkTork 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Book is a nonnotable self-published (through Lulu.com vanity press) title that clearly does not meet the book notability guidelines. DreamGuy 21:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, appears to be fan/hobby project. Xsmasher 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 22:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, appears to be fan/hobby project. Xsmasher 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 22:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, appears to be fan/hobby project. Xsmasher 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable gaming website. No reliable sources or any other evidence that this website meets WP:WEB. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 14:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is NOT the place for plot summaries, as these articles clearly are Corpx 03:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as cleaned up. Please note that this is a non-administrator close. The Evil Spartan 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, this article is an advertisement; but it contains a lot of information, and could be rewritten if anyone cares to take the time to do so. Xiaphias 03:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge with RMS Titanic. No keep arguments, no clear consensus reached between merge and delete so article is merged as the least destructive path JodyB talk 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate a collection of nn statistics (a grocery list? c'mon). Clarityfiend 03:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete ck lostsword•T•C 00:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
possible violation of Wikipedia:lyrics Xiaphias 03:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasSpeedy Delete as G7 (author request) per the notes on this AFD.--Isotope23 16:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear that this is completely legitimate. Sobar 02:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical non-notability not challenged for 30 days. Suspect it is autobiographical. Brianhe 02:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete, merge or keep. Therefore is kept by default JodyB talk 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unimportant staircase. Only "notable" due to its appearance in movies about the Titanic. --- RockMFR 01:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
School project film of zero-notablility which gets an impressive zero Google hits. Also nominated for deletion is the equally non-notable Is & Chris:The Movie Soundtrack. Masaruemoto 00:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor actress in very small roles such as girl with string and wannabe in the three films she was on, I been prodding many of these articles lately but unlike those, she is more of a conterversal prod because of her famous sisters, so I'm placing it here instead. Fails WP:BIO, Delete Jaranda wat's sup 01:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a tough one. It seems to lack good sources but she does have a level of notability. My instinct would be to delay an article until the notability is firmly established. --Stormbay 03:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 21:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed conflict on interest on the noticeboard. The external link from the very two first words seems to indicate an intent to spam; at any rate, there's not much to assert notability. Shalom Hello 01:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL and fails WP:V. The film's title get 5 Google hits. Even if it ever gets made, it's unlikely to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The article for the production "studio" is also nominated for deletion. Masaruemoto 00:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If their primary film is deleted, this should be as well. Sr13 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "studio"; gets only 11 Google hits. Another article for this studio was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations, so it's a potential speedy as G4, but this was created a year later so probably isn't a repost of the previous article. Masaruemoto 00:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:BIO. No major media coverage or major awards. Article is more of a resume. Nv8200p talk 00:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into Menards. —Kurykh 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think this passes WP:CORP. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 20:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to History of Freemasonry. Since I know nothing of the topic and there is apparently a whole Wikiproject of people who do, I'll turn this into a redirect, leaving the history behind it so that project members (and other intrepid editors) may take at will from the old content. — Scientizzle 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no reliable sources, no context, and gives little to no solid information on the subject. Most of the external links are personal sites ("Obolensky" is a pseudonym for the owner/author of the site the book is on, and the other stuff is mostly on Geocities type sites. The California Freemason article says nothing of value to the history of the article, except to underline that no one really knows about the subject. MSJapan 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]