The result was Article itself has long since been deleted. Elkman (Elkspeak) 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per article talk page, incident most likely never took place. No reliable sources have been found by task force members. Dali-Llama 03:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod, and disputed lot of other things too, it seems. Sending this over to AfD as a procedural thing. UsaSatsui 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as A7 (NN-bio). ELIMINATORJR 00:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Local radio DJ. Non-notability per WP:BIO. Self penned bio so WP:COI. Links provided don't even refer to him. Author/Subject removed prod with no comment WebHamster 23:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Carioca 01:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unsalvageably incoherent Gfzh 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WaltonOne 15:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no listings of the council on Google. The group doesn't have a website, doesn't display information on the leaders of the organization, and gives no ways for contacting the organization save for an address. In other words, this seems more like a hoax organization, not to mention that the creator of the article already has a history of creating hoax articles like Spacepol. Toussaint 23:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted G4. Non-admin closure. Tomj 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, a hacked version of hte game that does not have "significant secondary coverage" (WP:N). This version cites a fan site, which does not qualify as an WP:RS enough to support the existence of an article; and Yahoo Video, which is also not good enough as a reliable source. Speedy denied. hbdragon88 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, default to Keep. (However, the article seriously needs cleanup to reduce POV issues.) WaltonOne 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A criminal in Iran, convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Page is mostly a "save this person" article. Non-notable in the end. Jmlk17 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Maxim(talk) 02:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is unnecessary at this time. Two topics with similar names already link to each other as alternate meanings. Godlvall2 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - survived a previous AFD solely on the argument of keeping it separated from the article Sengoku period. Creating lists of trivia for the sole purpose of keeping the information out of the main article is unacceptable. As with any number of other similar laundry lists being passed off as articles, this should be deleted. Otto4711 22:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WaltonOne 15:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several concerns with this one: WP:V, for starters. I could find no reliable sources on google searches either for the article's name or for Jon McClure mixtape. Nothing that even mentions it, infact. It may be a hoax, infact, but I doubt it... More likely just original research. Also concerned over the notability of it. Whilst it's not enough for A7 I don't think (the guy who issued it certainly is notable), notability isn't inherited. Are mixtapes in their own right ever notable, infact? WP:MUSIC doesn't cover them specifically, but if treated as an album then this surely fails the notability front. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete A7. Pascal.Tesson 23:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This software doesn't look to be notable enough and it doesn't cite except its website. Soroush83 21:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. —Kurykh 22:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is not an internet guide. Captain panda 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Abject nonsense on a stick, with cream and a cherry on top. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This information exists in other articles. Redundant. Captain panda 21:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Carioca 18:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
procedural nomination Previously considered as part of a mass-AFD Aug 2006 with result 'keep'; tagged for PROD-based deletion Sept 2007 but should have been brought back here. The original AFD discussion began with an assertion that the F.C. did not meet WP:CORP. The Sep 2007 PROD was accompanied by the following assetion: "Amateur football club playing below Step 7 and having never played above that level. No other apparent reason for notability (e.g. cup run)." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable news producer. There is no assertion why this person is significant within her industry. Cmprince 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Horace_Slughorn#Slug_Club. (Nothing substantial to merge, as most of the information is already in that article, other than the minor characters.) WaltonOne 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no references, no out of universe information of any kind. As such, it is just a repetition of plot information from, primarily, the 6th Harry Potter book. As that book already has an article which covers its plot, and there are various "minor character" lists the characters could be in, this article can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WaltonOne 16:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable subject -- owner of a pizza restaurant and a movie extra; all citations attempting to demonstrate notability are from IMDB and one doesn't check out Accounting4Taste 20:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 19:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has problems with sourcing, e.g. two of its sources are wikis. Built on these poor sources is an OR synthesis which seems to be the development of a stereotype. Alksub 20:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Carioca 01:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a complete heel for nominating this, because it is a worthy organisation, but it is also a completely generic organisation, one of hundreds if not thousands devoted to looking for a cure for Parkinson's, and tens of thousands looking for cures for other diseases. It has no independent sources and no evidence of notability. If it were the work of anyone other then Michael J Fox I am absolutely confident we'd not have an article on it. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. No signs of distribution other than on YouTube. Alksub 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, obviously a bad faith nomination. Article is B-class and very well sourced. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a low ranking nazi member. I think it is failing the notability guidelines as he is not a person of attention User:Iwillallowarguings 8 Sept 2007
Speedy keep appears WP:POINT nomination Agathoclea 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see Wikipedia is not a dictionary -Eric (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and unverifiable information (little or no sources exist on the topic). Also advertising. Possibly merge with New England Patriots. Pats1 18:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bduke 12:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and unverifiable information (little or no sources exist on the topic). Pats1 18:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted. Prodego talk 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability is about the availablity of reliable source material for the article. It is not about importance or fame. The Ripps has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of The Ripps to develop an attributable article on the topic. The article was speedy deleted twice, and the prod was removed. The contributor to the article has not communicated with anyone about the article and is not using edit summaries to give an idea of what is going on. AfD seems the best way to address this. If there is reliable source material for the article, post it in the article and/or in this discussion. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already speedy deleted. Bduke 00:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zero content, essentially a URL placeholder. Random documents not serving of an article unto themselves, adds nothing beyond the link. Chris Cunningham 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, issue with sources and too subjective for a merge. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the figures on the list probably wouldn't satisfy WP:N. Best to delete and merge what can be salvaged into Emerging church. Blueboy96 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of prominent critics of the emerging church movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Blueboy96 18:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WaltonOne 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable layout board artist (that's a pretty minor role in film post-production). No sign of reliable third-party coverage (no a list of his credits on IMDb is not what we're looking for) and likely an autobiography. Pascal.Tesson 18:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC; no independent coverage is given. Article is a mere track listing of a compilation album. The reason for sending it here (rather than PRODding) is that a user made a comment on the talk page regarding WP:MUSIC: He argues that the album contains some songs by notable artists, so the compilation album should be notable. I don't agree; that passage in WP:MUSIC is (in my opinion) referring to the artist's original albums, not compilation albums. But perhaps this warrants a broader discussion. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, towns are inherently notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little notability with little content at all Marlith T/C 17:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are notability issues here, the cleanup tag has been around for months with nothing happening, the article is also copied off another site with little content at all Marlith T/C 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced neologism —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tragic victim of 9/11 attacks; however, otherwise NOT notable (as per WP:NOT). Should be deleted. Pugnacious 16:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I'd suggest the deleting admin exercise an extra degree of gentleness in this one, however. The creating editor of this sort of thing frequently tends to be either a friend or family member trying to create a memorial in the wrong place. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 17:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 07:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book, just published. Article presumably created in order to provide a platform for soap-boxing about Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion, and already turning into a battle-ground after less than 24 hours. This is a very recent small book which does not need a Wikipedia article, and we certainly don't need another platform for an argument over the rights and wrongs of Dawkins' view of religion. Snalwibma 16:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should it matter whether this is notable or not? The book pleases those that like or sympathise with religion, or dislike Richard Dawkins' militant atheism, and has the opposite effect on those who approve of his views. If people have the right to Wikipedia Dawkins and his books, why can't they allow this one to go up. Perhaps the site could be developed a little more so that Dawkins isn't left with a section that would appear to be criticising him, however there is nothing written that wasn't said by him and it should be allowed to stay. If people are upset about this, don't look at it and grow up- there are plenty of things we hear in this world that we don't want to, it doesnt mean we censor it- including Richard Dawkins aspertions' about Religion and what he calls 'religionists' (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.99 (talk)
I had a thought. We all seem to have a good understanding of what about this article is considered unencyclopaedic, even if we think it's insufficient for deletion. One particular problem is the way positive descriptions are covered. I have an idea on how that might be amended, which could well help this discussion; but I'm wondering - is Wikipedia policy to put up such ideas on the talk page, the deletion page, or both? Incidentally, I was thinking of either removing the section on them or, perhaps better, inserting an explanation that they are brief comments on the book in articles that cover criticisms of Dawkins in general rather than being reviews. So, i guess I'm asking three questions: should I bring that up on the talk page too, and is it an idea people here like, and does bringing it up (or, for that matter, actually doing it) help with this AfD discussion? 85.92.173.186 11:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no outside harry potter references, and is therefore a recitation of the wonderful Harry Potter books. We already have Harry Potter book and movie articles, so this article is duplicative of those, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 16:17, 8 September 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)) . |
The page gives lots info, and I don't think it should be deleted.
Kcharles 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, not much assertion of notability, does not meet WP:CORP. Proposed deletion a while ago was part of a disruption and reverted.[2]. Delete. Han-Kwang (t) 11:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete – no independent sources to verify notability. KrakatoaKatie 19:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be a summary of a published paper. There are no independent reliable sources characterizing any importance or significance of Coase's Penguin. Rather than being the topic of reliable sources, the essay seems to be reference material that would be cited among many other references by downstream authors. There does not seem to be enough reliable source material on Coase's Penguin that is independent of Coase's Penguin for this article to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Although the article does not belong on Wikipedia, Wikisource might be an appropriate location for this article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, no sources are cited, article is written as an indiscriminate list of features. -- intgr [talk] 15:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 15:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete hoax that had a contested prod that the article author removed. There is absolutely no historical record I can find that shows that this person existed. It should also be noted that article author's credibiility is exceedingly suspect, as the article, originally written, claimed that the person was a Han Dynasty eunuch, and after it was shown that that couldn't possibly true, the author changed it to Tang Dynasty. Delete. (I would have speedy deleted it myself if I could find a category that fit, but I couldn't. --Nlu (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 07:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confused, biased and often frankly bizarre POV fork. The article is basically an essay aiming to show the Jat people are Aryans, using evidence such as the conclusions nineteenth-century anthropologists came to after measuring people's noses. Tagged for cleanup, but utterly unsalvagable Lurker (said · done) 15:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Lurker, I am sure you mean well.Still, in the science of Anthropology, measuring various parts of the body, skulls,cephalic bones, nasal index, etc is a standard methodology. In Archeological Anthropology, these type of techniques help determine what people looked like in past, when all that we have a few bones and skulls to go by.
I agree that the article needs improvement, cleanup etc.
If we simply delete, following your sugestion, we must also then logically delete the article on Anthropology, Aryan, and other related articles.
Ravi Chaudhary 14:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a is actually a sub article, part of the main article Jats or Jat People, which contains a section -Origin of the Jats- see table of contents.
As with any book, article, research paper, when witing about a subject as extensive as the Jats, the subject needs to be divided into manageable chunks.
One of the sections, chapters- divisions will be: ‘The origins of the Jats’ OR ' THEORIES OF ORIGINS OF THE JATS'
This subject itself then has to be divided in to the various theories that exist and are being developed.
Some of the questions that arise are:
1 Are the Jats autochons of the Indian subcontinent, as some historians suggest?
2. Are they of foreign origin? If so from where?
3. Are they ‘Aryans’ part of the supposed invasion of the Indian subcontinent’ by Aryans? Then who were the Aryans/ were they Europeans? Were they central Asians? Is the term ‘Aryan ‘appropriate to denote a ‘race’? That in itself is a subject on which much academic and real blood has been spilt, - e.g Nazi Germany and as yet no satisfactory answers have come forward,
4. A number of historians have suggested they are of ‘Scythian’ origin?
5. Then there is mythology- is the jats descended form the ‘locks of Lord Shiva.
6. Were the Jats the same people, who are the subject of the Vedic traditions- the Rig Veda etc?
7. Are they the subject of, Are they of the clans and people referred to in the Indian epic- the Mahabharat.
8. Do they have any relationship to the Goths, the Huns, the Gaut, Geats, Gutar, and the Jutes of Scandinavia?
Each of the topics and questions can and is the subject of much research and historical writing. Every year more and more papers on the subjects are coming out.>
Out of all these and more questions: come the question, (as anyone writing a paper is familiar with) do you jumble it all together or split it, and use an index with sub indices?
The jats article has done that in terms of basic structure see below:
Contents [hide] • 1 People
• 2 Demographics
• 3 Distribution
• 4 Background
o 4.1 Theories of origin
o 4.2 Indo-Aryan origin
o 4.3 Indo-Scythian origin
o 4.4 Origin of Jats from Shiva's Locks
The name of the sub Article Indo Aryan origin of Jats then should then stand as such, but in the body it should be made clear that it is a sub article.
Should the article itself be deleted?
Well if it is a sub article, on a valid line of inquiry which much literature exists, as it does, then the answer is an obvious NO.
The term Indo Aryan and Aryan exist,
A brief search in the wikipedia shows the results as below: . Indo-Aryan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Indo aryan)
Jump to: navigation, search
Indo-Aryan refers to:
• Indo-Aryan languages
• Indo-Aryan migration
• Indo-Aryans, the various peoples speaking these languages
See also:
• Indo-Iranian
• Aryan
• Arya
The Indo Aryan article from WikiPedia:
The Indo Aryan page, list a number of people as being Indo Aryans.( and I treat this a nomenclature only- I do not agree with the concept of Aryan as a race)
Indo-Aryans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Indo-Aryans v • d • e
Total population ~1 Billion
Regions with significant populations
Indian subcontinent, with minority populations on all continents. Languages
Indo-Aryan languages
Religions
Dharmic religions, Abrahamic religions, Zoroastrianism
The Indo-Aryans are a wide collection of peoples united by their common status as speakers of the Indo-Aryan (Indic) branch of the family of Indo-European and Indo-Iranian languages. Today, there are close to a billion native speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, mostly indigenous to the region of South Asia, though in ancient times, they could have been found on the eastern part of the Iranian plateau (Afghanistan) and in areas as far west as modern Syria and Iraq (the Mittani). Their cultural influence, from early on in the first millennium AD, reached as far east as modern Cambodia and Vietnam (Khmer and Champa kingdoms) as well as Indonesia, where it survives in Bali, and in the Philippines. The Roma people migrated westward in medieval times, and modern migration gave rise to Indo-Aryan minorities on most continents.[citation needed]
Contents [hide]
• 1 Pre-Vedic Indo-Aryans
• 2 Vedic Aryans
• 3 Antiquity
• 4 Middle Kingdoms
• 5 Contemporary Indo-Aryans
o 5.1 Hindustani communities
o 5.2 Roma and Sinti
• 6 Indo-Aryan peoples
o 6.1 Ancient
o 6.2 Modern
• 7 Notes
• 8 References
• 9 See also
[edit] Pre-Vedic Indo-Aryans
Main article: Indo-Aryan migration
Separation of Indo-Aryans proper from Proto-Indo-Iranians is commonly dated, on linguistic grounds, to roughly 2000 BC.[citation needed] The Nuristani languages probably split in such early times, and are classified as either remote Indo-Aryan dialects or as an independent branch of Indo-Iranian. It is believed that by 1500 BC Indo-Aryans had reached Assyria in the west (the Mitanni) and northern Afghanistan in the east (the Rigvedic tribes).
The spread of Indo-Aryan languages has been connected with the spread of the chariot in the first half of the second millennium BC. Some scholars trace the Indo-Iranians (both Indo-Aryans and Iranians) back to the Andronovo culture (2nd millennium BC). Other scholars like Brentjes (1981), Klejn (1974), Francfort (1989), Lyonnet (1993), Hiebert (1998) and Sarianidi (1993) have argued that the Andronovo culture cannot be associated with the Indo-Aryans of India or with the Mitanni because the Andronovo culture took shape too late and because no actual traces of their culture (e.g. warrior burials or timber-frame materials of the Andronovo culture) have been found in India or Mesopotamia (Edwin Bryant. 2001). The archaeologist J.P. Mallory (1998) finds it "extraordinarily difficult to make a case for expansions from this northern region to northern India" and remarks that the proposed migration routes "only [get] the Indo-Iranian to Central Asia, but not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans" (Mallory 1998; Bryant 2001: 216). Therefore he has suggested (1998) the 'Kulturkugel' model of Indo-Aryan speakers with a BMAC culture, that spread into eastern Iran and beyond.
Other scholars like Asko Parpola (1988) connect the BMAC with the Indo-Aryans. But although horses were known to the Indo-Aryans, evidence for their presence in the form of horse bones is missing in the BMAC (e.g. Bernard Sergent. Genèse de l'Inde. 1997:161 ff.). However, recently a foal burial has been found, indicating import from the northern steppes. Asko Parpola (1988) has argued that the Dasas were the "carriers of the Bronze Age culture of Greater Iran" living in the BMAC and that the forts with circular walls destroyed by the Indo-Aryans were actually located in the BMAC. Parpola's hypothesis has been criticized by K.D. Sethna (1992) and other writers.
[edit] Vedic Aryans
See also: Vedic period and Rigvedic tribes
The first undisputed horse remains in India are found in the Bronze Age Gandhara Grave culture context from ca. 1600 BC (although there are claims[citation needed] of horse bones found in Harappan and even pre-Harappan layers). This likely corresponds to an influx of early Indo-Aryan speakers over the Hindukush (comparable to the Kushan expansion of the first centuries AD). Together with indigenous cultures, this gave rise to the Vedic civilization of the early Iron Age. This civilization is marked by a continual shift to the east, first to the Gangetic plain with the Kurus and Panchalas, and further east with the Kosala and Videha. This Iron Age expansion corresponds to the black and red ware and painted grey ware cultures.
[edit] Antiquity
See also: Mahajanapadas and Maurya Empire
The Vedic Kuru and Panchala kingdoms in the first millennium became the core of the Mahajanapadas, archaeologically corresponding to the Northern Black Polished Ware, and the rise of the Mauryan Empire, and later the medieval Middle kingdoms of India.
For Hellenistic times, Oleg N. Trubachev (1999; elaborating on a hypothesis by Kretschmer 1944) suggests that there were Indo-Aryan speakers in the Pontic steppe. The Maeotes and the Sindes, the latter also known as "Indoi" and described by Hesychius as an "an Indian people".[1]
[edit] Middle Kingdoms
Statue of Shivaji Bhonslé, founder of the Maratha empire. Main articles: Middle kingdoms of India and Middle Indo-Aryan languages The various Prakrit vernaculars developed into independent languages in the course of the Middle Ages (see Apabhramsha), forming the Abahatta group in the east and the Hindustani group in the west, see also History of the Hindi language. The Roma people (also known as Gypsies) are believed to have left India around AD 1000.21
[edit] Contemporary Indo-Aryans
Contemporary native speakers of Indo-Aryan languages are spread over most of the northern Indian Subcontinent. Native and non-native speakers of Indo-Aryans languages also reach the south of the peninsula and into Sri Lanka and the Maldives. The largest group are the speakers of the Hindi and Urdu dialects of the India and Pakistan, together with other dialects also grouped as Hindustani, numbering at roughly half a billion native speakers, constituting the largest community of speakers of any of the Indo-European languages. Other Indo-Aryan communities are in Bangladesh, Nepal and parts of Afghanistan. Of the 23 national languages of India, 16 are Indo-Aryan languages(see also languages of India). The only Indo-Aryan branch surviving outside the Indian Subcontinent and the Himalayas is the Romani language, the language of the Roma people (Gypsies).
[edit] Hindustani communities
Main article: Hindustani language
Hindustani is an umbrella term for various dialects descended from the Prakrits of medieval India. The largest of these are the Hindi and Urdu languages. Hindustani speaking people inhabit modern-day Pakistan and northern India. During the British Raj, this region was identified as "Hindustan", the Persian for "Land of the Hindus". Related languages are spoken all over Indian subcontinent, from Bengal to Sri Lanka and the Maldives.
[edit] Roma and Sinti
Main articles: Roma people and Sinti
Roma family in Smyrne, Turkey, photographed in 1904. The closely related Roma and Sinti people (the latter having the old name of the river Indus, the Sind), also known as "Gypsies", are traditionally nomadic. They are believed to have left India in about 1000 AD and to have passed through what is now Afghanistan, Persia, Armenia, and Turkey. People recognizable by other Roma as Roma still live as far east as Iran, including some who made the migration to Europe and returned. By the 14th century, the Roma had reached the Balkans; by the 15th century they appeared in Western Europe; and by the 16th century, they had reached Scotland and Sweden. Peoples with some similarity to the Roma still exist in India, particularly in the desert state of Rajasthan. Roma immigration to the United States began in colonial times, and larger scale immigration began in the 1860s with groups from Britain. The largest number of immigrants came over in the early 1900s. A large number also moved to Latin America.
[edit] Indo-Aryan peoples
[edit] Ancient
• Rigvedic tribes
• Angas
• Kalingas
• Kambojas
• Kasis
• Kurus
• Licchavis
• Gandharis
• Gangaridai
• Gupta
• Magadhis
• Maurya
• Nanda
• Pala
• Satavahanas
• Shakya
• Vanga
[edit] Modern
• Bengali people
• Bihari people
• Caló
• Chamar
• Chhettris
• CKPs
• Chittagonians
• Dhangars
• Dom people
• Gitanos
• Gujaratis
• Gurkhas
• Jats'Bold text'
• Kalderash
• Kambojs, Kambohs
• Kammas
• Konkani people
• Deshastha
• Brahmins
• Lohanas
• Malikun
• Marathas
• Marathi people
• Marwaris
• Muhajirs
• Nambiars
• Namboothiris
• Oriya people
• Punjabi people
• Rajputs
• Romnichals
• Saraswats
• Seraikis
• Sinhalese
• Sindhi people
• Sinti
• Tarkhans
• Kayastha
• Ahluwalia
[edit] Notes
1. ^ Sindoi (or Sindi etc.) were also described by e.g. Herodotus, Strabo, Dionysius, Stephen Byzantine, Polienus. [1]
[edit] References
• Bryant, Edwin (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513777-9.
• Mallory, JP. 1998. "A European Perspective on Indo-Europeans in Asia". In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern and Central Asia. Ed. Mair. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
• Trubachov, Oleg N., 1999: Indoarica, Nauka, Moscow.
[edit] See also
Indo-European topics
Indo-European languages
Albanian • Anatolian • Armenian
Baltic • Celtic • Dacian • Germanic
Greek • Indo-Iranian • Italic • Phrygian
Slavic • Thracian • Tocharian
Indo-European peoples
Albanians • Anatolians • Armenians Balts • Celts • Germanic peoples Greeks • Indo-Aryans • Indo-Iranians Iranians • Italic peoples • Slavs Thracians • Tocharians
Proto-Indo-Europeans
Language • Society • Religion
Urheimat hypotheses
Kurgan hypothesis • Anatolia Armenia • India • PCT
Indo-European studies
• Aryan
• Arya
• Aryavarta
• Aryan race
• Iranian Peoples
• Indo-Aryan migration
• Dasa
• Kshatriya
• Proto-Indo-Europeans
• Indo-Aryan languages
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryans"
Categories: All articles with unsourced stat
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The article is only a sub article of the main article [[{Jat Peoples]], one of the three related to the Origins of the Jats. We should expect more sub articles not less.
The term Aryan, Indo Aryan has a vast body of literature and whether we like or not, it is a subject not likely to go away.
One does not to have agreed with everything in the article. Editors may wish to provide opposing theories.
An article must contain data and evidence that support of oppose the various perspectives and theories. This will encourage education, not pushing one view down anyone’s throat.
To delete the sub article would mean that we should also then delete all articles where the term Aryan or Indo Aryan is used.
That would disrupt a substantial section of Wikipedia.
Recommend: STRONG KEEP. but revise and expand
Ravi Chaudhary 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) The article is about a "cult buster" who is not notable.
2) The Website is not professional.
3) The information is biased and not neutral.
4) The User (Firstplubline) is advertising for his book business.
This page should be deleted. Sapienz 15:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator was blocked tonight for posting personal identifying information about another user. As they have been involved in extensive harassment of that user, who may be involved with this organisation but who has never edited the article, I'm tempted to believe that this is part of a continuing campaign of harassment rather than a serious attempt to sort out the obvious issues with this article. Orderinchaos 16:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and editorial redirect to Megastructure. The arguments that this term is supposedly widely used in sources does not address the WP:WINAD issue, and since these sources are not cited, we cannot ascertain their reliability or even, per WP:V, that they use "supertall" in the same sense as this article. Sandstein 07:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article admits this term is a made up word in the blogosphere. It also admits there is no official definition of this term. WP:NOT wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day, or on a blog one day.Due to this it fails WP:V before it even gets going. If there is any useful information in regards to some of the individual subjects (skyscrapers, radio towers, etc) that isn't already on the parent articles this can be moved prior to the closing of the AfD. Picking a redirect would be impossible because it does cover many individual topics hence why I'm nominating the term itself for deletion and not suggesting a split. Crossmr 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (A7) by Maxim. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 18:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP; no secondary coverage known. PROD was contested in September 2006 by the original author, User:Ogsa, which hints towards WP:COI. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: A7 or G11 - take your pick. It's an obvious promo article (a pitch phrase and a link) for a non-notable company (simply operating in Libya does not assert WP:NOTE. So it double fails. I've CSD tagged it. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Subject appears to be non-notable, and a Google search does not turn up any third-party references. Salmar 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the more interesting bios I've read lately. However, while this lady received 3.1% of the vote as a Libertarian candidate in a local Michigan election in 1998 and was interviewed as a member of a local militia group, it is her dominatrix activity that (um) dominates her internet-published autobiography. Evb-wiki 14:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 07:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability guideline WP:BIO Mathew5000 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Neil ム 11:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn college football rivalry, no sources that indicate why this rivalry is important, Delete Jaranda wat's sup 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone's overheated fantasy wrestling company. Much name-dropping (Bill Gates? Steve Jobs?), but no sign on Google of any of the facts claimed. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by article creator IPWrestling (talk · contribs), who also blanked the talk page. Calton | Talk 13:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as CSD G12. Xoloz 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article advertises Pemberton Discovery Tours and says very little about wildflowers. Additionally the Flora of Australia article is the best place for information on flowers. Article should be deleted, has no verified information to be added to any other article. Suicidalhamster 13:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN label that fails to establish notability. Fails WP:CORP. Lugnuts 06:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge most per Moonriddengirl (18:11, 9 September 2007) below, and no consensus to delete the others. Whether or not these should be merged as well is an editorial issue. Sandstein 08:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A large group of articles for individual Beanie Babies lacking notability per WP:N. Should be either moved into a list or deleted entirely.--PCPP 06:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I felt would make good individual articles are beanies that were among the most sought during the fad. Also, certain events and concepts pertaining to beanies, such as Retirement (Beanie Babies), would make good articles. Xyz7890 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily I think this is a matter of organization. But note that in most instances, references need improvement. I see primarily references to an unofficial website. --Moonriddengirl 14:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Teenie Beanies and Retirement (Beanie Babies) are to be allowed to survive, I think that's the lot of them. If the AfD is closed without objection, I will place redirects on the ones that I've merged. And I will rename Retirement (Beanie Babies) to Retired Beanie Babies. I will also add references to these subpages to the original Beanie Baby article. --Moonriddengirl 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. This page was recently blanked by an anon on grounds of alleged libel, which I've reverted for the moment. It appears to me to be more than adequately sourced, but I don't know enough (i.e. anything) about the case to judge whether it's a) a BLP violation that should be speedied, b) a valid article but about a subject not notable enough to warrant keeping, that should be deleted via AfD, or c) a valid article which should remain (possibly under another title). So, sending it over here for someone to form an opinion. This is a procedural nom, so I abstain — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Notability and RS needed to be address given its been listed for 14+ days at afd something beyond a single news article attributed to LA Times(not dated) should have been forth coming. The nomination of a You tube show for a You tube award doesnt make notability. Gnangarra 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Youtube series. No claims of notability, no reliable sources of notability. Nothing at news.google.com. I gave up looking for reliable sources after the first five pages of Google. Nothing has changed since this was closed as a rather disputable no consensus back in March. First Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowmen hunters. Corvus cornix 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Just a youtube series, fails WP:NOTE. Cheers,JetLover 22:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Granted that when I or the other main contributer to the article have updated it in the past few months we somehow missed that the original links were changed by the sources. The links are now fixed and some new content added. Please note that the creators of Snowmen Hunting were invited by the YouTube management to be the only representatives for all the comedians on YouTube to the YouTube Sales and Business Development conference. This in and of itself gives them some notability within the YouTube community.
As to Corvus_cornix's search on Google please note WP:GOOGLEHITS as a guide to why this may not be a reliable way to judge notability.
In answer to CosmicPenquin about the number of views I call your attention to the guideline of WP:NOTBIGENOUGH which points out that there is no arbatrary number that denotes notability. As you stated: "These videos are on the edge of notability". Where exactly is that edge and at what point does one cross over? Many of the top 100 videos that Mr. Penquin mentions are clips of professional comedians. Many of which may have an entry about them in WP. At what point in their carreer did these professionals become notable? I'm reluctent to try and put an exact date or number of people having seen them as a way to designate that they have arrived and are notable. steveoutdoorrec 23:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is reference to the LA Times. Not to mention EVERY other person nominated in the Best Series category for the 2006 YouTube awards has an entry in Wikipedia. The removal is without merit. No need to single out these guys. ScottS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottS (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article expired. It's not uncommon. It was linked here on Wikipedia through the LA Times for a while. ScottS
I repeat - I went to news.google.com to look for "Snowmen hunters", and came up with nothing. Nobody in the mass media appears to be interested in these guys. Corvus cornix 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Gnangarra 01:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing here or in the first few pages of Google indicating that, except for a few of the followers of David Icke, the 'Chitauri' are anything other than a part of the Marvel universe, where they appear to be synonymous with Skrull topynate 22:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. One independent source is given (#2), but this one does not contain in-depth coverage of the subject. PROD was contested with request to list the article on AfD. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Neil ム 11:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable specialized law firm. It has not been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. "Ranked in the top tier of the annual Legal 500 list of UK patent and trade mark firms" does not make a specialized law firm notable. Edcolins 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the non-notability simply due to the unverified citation? Or does being "specialized" somehow disqualify it? In the former case, the link did not work due to the need for a session cookie when accessing the Legal 500 website; the citation has now been amended accordingly. A further point of note is the firm's being the second-largest patent firm in the UK. This fact is now included and referenced in the article. Orie0505 15:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable in May 2007, still not notable. Aleph-4 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.
Non-notable band. Speedy denied on the grounds that notability was asserted. Notability assertion seems to depend on a bit of a walled garden. 1 released single which doesn't appear to have charted. No albums. Doesn't meet WP:BAND WebHamster 12:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability was asserted due to the link to the Fat Truckers a group linked closely to British group Pulp (band) ie. they toured with Pulp on the last extensive Pulp tour, member Ross Orton played percussion with Pulp live and the band remixed several Pulp tracks. Pulp lead singer Jarvis Cocker repeatedely mentioned the band in interviews in Pulp's last years.
Fat Truckers: The Fat Truckers were one of the originators of the music genre Electroclash, which combined Electronica/Electronic dance music with Punk Rock, after much touring and independantly released singles they were signed to DJ Hell's International DJ Gigolo record label. Their tracks were more widely know in clubs and they featured on countless compilation albums alongside more well know artists. Jason Buckle from Fat Truckers also formed part of Jarvis Cocker's post Pulp band Relaxed Muscle. Ex-Fat Trucker Ross Orton is also Meat for a Dark Day's producer, he is also know for producing M.I.A and working with Steve Mackey from Pulp.
Therefore I believe their close links, and descendance from, the band Fat Truckers qualifies this entry to be valid.
Meat For A Dark Day: Other than their close link to influential, cult act the Fat Truckers. Meat for a Dark Day are notable for their high profile support slots to major British and US bands (e.g. Low (band), The Earlies, Josh T Pearson etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark a (talk • contribs) 10:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 81.152.14.169 23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. CitiCat ♫ 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A band that barely scrapes in to WP:BAND on a vague technicality (a part-time member of the band was in another notable band). Only 1 album release that doesn't appear to have charted. Nomination: Non-notable WebHamster 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Maxim(talk) 14:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:CORP (contested prod).
Maxim(talk) 12:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. sloppy debate, concensus for deleting, WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't a reason for keeping, references are poor, and also no indication was given on why this resterant is important to an area that isn't local Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 4th nomination for deletion. CSD was refused on the grounds that notability is asserted (not sure how though). Non-notability per WP:CORP WebHamster 12:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Webhamster, as your profile states, you like to delete things. This establishment has to be kind of notable because I found links to it and wanted to get details from Wikipedia and couldn't because there was no page. This isn't an advertisement. Look at the link provided for a review of the place, mostly negative people complaining about bad food. Bad food doesn't mean a place isn't notable. This is surly big enough to have a Wikipedia page. Don't go delete crazy. Thanks. Nesnad 12:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DID YOU EVEN READ THE LINK?? How could it be prepared by the publicist?? The user reviews are horrible. They all gave less than three stars. I think the link wasn't really read carefully. And regarding other comments, the article is a baby thats why it doesn't go into too many details yet. Do a google search, there is a lot of info out there. I just don't have time yet to pull it all together yet. I have no connection to this place, never even been there, but see no reason why it cant be here. Information is useful and if a similar company (in the same area) Medieval Times has a huge wikipedia page why cant this one? That's like saying McDonalds can have a page but Burger King can not. Nesnad 15:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: This is a perfect case for the application of WP:SNOW.OfficeGirl 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, why are these sources non reliable? Newspapers seem reliable enough to me. (And I'm not all about the old media, regardless of what some people say, I think blogs can be reliable too.) And yes, this company seems horrible Mandsford. Really a bad apple, so to speak. But I don't think that means people can't look the company up in Wikipedia. It's not like they will be forced to see the page. It's here if they want it. Nesnad 13:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomjakobsen, thanks for the feedback, but I see a lot of people claim things like "no famous people died there" or whatever, and other things, but no one has quoted where it says directly in policy that this isn't notable enough. Besides just saying "it isn't notable" or that they are "crappy restaurants". That's total POV and just because they are crap doesn't mean they are worth a delete, even though I think these places seem pretty crappy too... that doesn't mean it's not worth putting in Wikipedia. In fact, I talked to someone from Florida today way over here and asked him if he knew of this place. He had nothing but bad things to say about the place, said the owners were freaky and he thought it was a total tourist trap. However, crap does not equal something that can't have an article. I don't see why we can't have a little information on Wikipedia for the next person like me (and apparently others) who want information about this place. Clearly there are people that want more information about this place... and Wikipedia can provide information. Is that too weird? Nesnad 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, honestly no offense meant but thats a funny thing to argue. Google can find almost anything, does that mean that Wikipedia can't have an article about things Google can find? This article is not about bad tasting food. It is just trying to be NPOV and report what is said about this place. Further, there is a CNN reference on the page now. TV, Newspapers, Blogs.... What more does this article need to make the delete soldiers give it a chance? Thanks guys, Nesnad 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughts Officegirl... Why is that not reliable? And correct me if I'm wrong but notable means worth of notice? If a company is interviewed by CNN, even if they aren't the only company interviewed, doesn't that make them worth notice? Notability does not equal famous. It means worthy of notice. Thats a quote from WP:N, is it not? Thanks. Nesnad 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: There is so much written about this place, here is another one for browsing. Very long indepth article with a lot of information in it that I can incorporate in to this article. (It's in Spanish, multilingual sources aren't a problem I hope.) Nesnad 19:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC) EDIT: And here is another article about this establishment. Same newspaper as another source, but written by a different author months later. I'm not sure why this article hasn't been acknowledged as notable yet. This is more references to substantial articles than more than half of the articles here on wikipedia! :) Nesnad 13:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. CitiCat ♫ 23:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously prodded, resulting a delete. It was nominated for speedy deletion, and although I feel it asserts some notability, I don't feel it meets WP:N. Maxim(talk) 11:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basham and this movement are analysed in numerous books, including (from the few I have):
Balmer, R., Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Baylor University Press, 2004
Burkes, R., Damaged Disciples: Casualties of Authoritarian Churches and the Shepherding Movement, Zondervan, Michigan, 1992
Burgess et al., Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, Zondervan, Michigan, 1988
Diamond, S., Not By Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, The Guilford Press, London, 1998
MacArthur Jr. J. F., Charismatice Chaos, Zondervan Publishing House, Michigan, 1992
Moore, S D., The Shepherding Movement, Continuum International Publishing, Sheffield, 2004
Scotland, N., Charismatics and the New Millennium, Hodder & Stoughton, 1995
Smail et al., Charismatic Renewal: The Search for a Theology, SPECK, London, 1993
Synan, V, The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal, Nelson, Nashville, 2001
Synan, V., The Holiness Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the 20th Century, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1997
Mike Orchard 09:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.27.125 (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Gnangarra 01:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted once, deletion review result was to relist but that was not done.
Airline complaints are complaints about airlines. That, plus some factoids on complaint rates, is about it here. Oh, and a section which implies that the Aviation Consumer Protection Service is the official Government complaints body - no it isn't, not where I live. Someoen has forgotten that USA <> world. But that's a minor matter.
There is nothing here that is not either original research, generic, obvious, or could be covered in another article. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 01:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Musician/Engineer with assertions of notability but nothing listed to back them up. Most of the assertions seem to rely heavily on notability inheritance. Article doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:BAND WebHamster 11:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of WP:OR This article was created by one of the two authors of the book cited as a reference. He left his name off the 'author' list. The book itself was published by a press that seems to only have this book on its list. The term 'superoptimism' does exist in psychology, where it seems to be used to refer to something likely to get drug addicts and criminals in trouble - not the topic of this article. Anarchia 11:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Gnangarra 00:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB -- Non-notable game, especially as far as MMORPGs go with only ~400 players + WP:OR --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. CitiCat ♫ 22:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list serves no function, is un-maintained and the information is available elsewhere. RichyBoy 10:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as copyvio. CitiCat ♫ 21:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Maxim(talk) 13:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list of characters from a video game, with no sources other than a couple of bits of speculation from a fan forum. I'd dispute these being characters per se, actually, they don't seem to have much actual characterisation. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to List of Castlevania characters#Supporting characters just as AfD opened, no need to keep it open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe and wholly unsourced description of a character that "doesn't have any specific appearances". Reads as a personal essay. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. — TKD::Talk 07:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without references or assertion of notability, I suspect this falls under WP:NFT, unless the contributor somehow is referring to d20 Anime (which itself isn't particularly notable.) Marasmusine 09:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating these related articles:
The result was delete. DS 15:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL, and no references to suggest otherwise Yngvarr 08:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Malcolm (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft. Redundant to List of programs broadcast by GMA Network, List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN etc. Should be deleted per WP:NOT. Danngarcia 08:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, spam-ish article content, over a year old with no reliable independent sources. Cquan (after the beep...) 07:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andy
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what makes this particular residence hall notable and worthy of an article. I would be happy to keep this article if there was a chance that we could prove it notable enough for inclusion, but I don't see that happening. Surely there are more notable things at NDSU that should have their own articles before a non-notable residence hall complex has one. MatthewUND(talk) 07:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Rozen Maiden episodes#Rozen Maiden träumend. — TKD::Talk 07:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Plot Summaries. KojieroSaske 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir aaron sama girl 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir aaron sama girl 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article subject cannot be verified by Reliable Sources, despite concerted effort by Aviation accident task force. Dali-Llama 03:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following information is provided for Bangkok (longitude E100.5, latitude N13.8):
Tuesday
19 April 2005
Universal Time + 7h
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted for this road, about which there was apparently not much else to say other than that it exists. wikipediatrix 03:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable car-racing entertainment venue. Fails WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 03:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced bio of minor actor. No significant roles or real-world impact. PROD and notability tags added, but removed by User:Oakshade with the comment Being an actor in Dances with Wolves and The Bodyguard is an assertion of notability. Yes, everyone remembers his groundbreaking roles as "Corporal Spivey" and "Dan". Wikipedia not being the Directory of Actors Who Probably Haven't Quit Their Day Jobs, this needs to go.Calton | Talk 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (other than to cleanup) CitiCat ♫ 21:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 3rd nomination. There was a mix up with the first nomination. It was nomination for COI but withdrawn, so I nominated with the 2nd AFD. But then the first was changed nomination for notibility, so the 2nd AFD was correctly closed as AFD's too quickly. The last keep discussion the concensus was basically that notibility would be established, but the article was too new. None of claimed notability that resulted in the keep was ever added the article, it is now months later and it is time to delete it.
My main reason for nominating are: WP:COI and Notibility.
Notibility: The article shows no sources for anything in it, instead it just lists some references at the end. The article has just 3 sources for reference. None of which establish notibility in any way. The first one talks about an ideal of the club, it has nothing to do with the club itself, the club is in no way mentioned in the reference. The second reference is legal bill in the house sittings, the club gets a passing mention as one of many many clubs that were talked with by the government on establishment of the borders of the national park and its walking track. Hundreds of clubs are mentioned in the document. No notability is asserted here. The 3rd reference merely a link to the Australia Buisness register, just because the buiness exists doesn't mean its notable.
In the further reading section we seen a lot of links. Many have nothing to do with great networking but just to do with saving the forest etc. The books about great networking in the library are required by law as the documents for the non profit organisation, every organization has them in WA. No notibility here at all.
The 'media' section is merely a mention of their own document, which they had made themselves and has not been shown on any stations of notable audience.
Clearly this article completely fails WP:ORG "is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."
As for the conflict of interest, it should be obvious that several of the authors of the page are admitted members of the club. Most of the document is unsourced (indeed as I have said above the reference mention NOTHING that is in the article). One of the editors is User:Greatwalk who created the page himself and has continually added content with no sources what so ever. The main reason for the COI is that the article makes alot of claims and gives the impression it is responsible for alot of the major walks - when it is not, they are walks involving many groups.
After over 6 months of not providing any decent sources nor establishing notibility, I think it is time it gets deleted. I urge only independant people to examine the page and club, so as to avoid what happened last time, when all the great walk members came to support the club with huge statements and no hard proof of any sources or notibility. Dacium 02:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and possibly rename (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only contains a vague definition of "community education", appears to address a Scottish perspective, so could perhaps be renamed "Community education in Scotland", though would still need rewriting. I vote to delete. Jonathan Oldenbuck 11:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Bduke 09:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. His unnoteable achievements are unsourced. (His tisch is is in the basemant of Satmar? Enough said.) Yeshivish 02:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Yeshivish 03:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
&Delete no significant coverage Corpx 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Non-admin closure per WP:SNOW. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Portugues translation of the word Suspect and we dont do Portuguese here, SqueakBox 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Carioca 01:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asserts notability as New Zealand's leading chiropractor but absolutely no citations, references, sources etc. Speedy was declined. Doesn't meet WP:BIO (not even if bent over backwards!) WebHamster 02:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Meets criteria for speedy deletion under criterion A3. This does not preclude its recreation if the article can be expanded beyond a rephrasing of the title.. Navou banter 06:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable topic for article. Information in this article can be put into the articles on the teams mentioned themselves. Captain panda 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Gnangarra 00:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a How-to or a dictionary. There is also the possibility of masked advertising with a company's name used prominently in the article for no apparent reason. Author removed prod WebHamster 01:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. All right, if you are going to list this as AfD, then I am going to list cover letter, because both articles, while they are about subjects important in our society and of likely interest to readers, are/were also written in a "how-to"-like tone. Captain Zyrain 19:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball delete. Maxim(talk) 13:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL, and no references to suggest otherwise Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Non-admin closure. Deor 02:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability yet to come, speedy deletion tag removed, ghits show some prominence. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus achievable with this AfD as there is an assertion that the nomination is in bad faith and making a point, the behaviour of the nominator during this afd tends emphasise this conclusion. That behaviour doesnt then permit others with a differing view to act in the same fashion.
Wikipedia shouldnt be defining cirteria, inclusion in the list should be based solely on a third party reliable source that defines the performer as big busted providing that has occured it doesnt matter whether the person is 34DD or 12A. Gnangarra 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria for this list is too subjective. Deciding which models and performers belong on the list has led to disagreements and edit-warring. Epbr123 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Rypcord. 13:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypcord (talk • LBNcontribs)
Also:
For what it's worth... Dekkappai 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99.242.169.7 19:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page (2nd nomination)
The result was Keep Gnangarra 09:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly not notable, needs to be rewritten, low-quality, hoaxish as well. Also may have original research, and cleanup. I speedied in the spirit of A7 and IAR, but User:TigerShark overturned me. However, I feel this article should be deleted, and well, this is the prover venue. Maxim(talk) 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dime novel, like many other Alger novels, which are not considered notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 17:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 20:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From CSD, no opinion. Prodego talk 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal for a tunnel not likely to be built for a very,very long time and not being currently seriously considered by anyone has no place in Wikipedia. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]