Purge server cache</sdmall>
The result was Keep per improvements and withdrawal of AfD request. Thanks to User:S. Dean Jameson for the rewrite effort. Frank | talk 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has several problems, most notably, it appears to be spam written by the subject. Not blatant spam like you might get in e-mail, but it is self-promoting. Add to that that it has no lead section, is virtually devoid of verifiable references/citations, is not encyclopedic, it has NPOV issues and no articles link to it, this article should be deleted. ~~ Gmatsuda (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is much improved, thanks to Frank. I'll withdraw the AFd. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable fancruft of a soap opera. The only people who would care is people who watch the show. See WP:FANCRUFT for details. Tavix (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep all. While the arguments for deleting the content are persuasive, so too are the arguments that these lists should be kept and/or moved to Wikisource. Although there is no firm consensus as to what exactly should be done with the content, there seems to be a consensus that it should not be deleted, and so I am closing the discussion as a keep for the time being. Any transwikiing of content can be handled through normal processes. --jonny-mt 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first of a series of articles that are lists of court cases. By WP:NOT, this seems to be a mirror of information found here. Most of the articles are only redlinks too. justinfr (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I have gotten notice that the pages referring to the Federal Reporter, Second Series that OpenJurist is adding have been nominated for deletion. These information on these pages do not exist on Wikipedia and are of the same style as the US Supreme Court Case lists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
I would argue that these cases add value to Wikipedia. They are cases that provide incite into the laws of the United States just as USSC cases do. OpenJurist has been instructed that members of Wikipedia have been wanting to add Federal Reporter cases to Wikipedia for some time. We are fulfilling that mission.
Furthermore, as to the cases existing on other sources, that is also true US Supreme Court Cases that exist on Findlaw as well as on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the fact that many of these cases are redlined only goes to the fact that there is a lot of information that needs to be added to Wikipedia, not to the fact that it is not valuable information.
(I was not sure where to respond, so I have done so here and the discussion page.)
Openjurist (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello andy,
I noticed that on:
You mentioned that:
"Delete - this is just a massive series of redlinks, contra to WP policy at WP:NOT. The information is readily available elsewhere. There is already a Federal Reporter article which is more than enough to do the job. andy (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)"
However if you visit any of the US Supreme Court Opinion pages they are also a massive collection of Red links until someone writes articles for them.
Here are some of the USSC pages I chose at random: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_129 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_106 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_200
Furthermore, I have discussed this concept with MZMcBride and this work that I am contributing to Wikipedia has been on her to do list:
"It's interesting that you all are working on these case lists, as it's been on my to-do list for a very long time to convert these lists to use templates." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Openjurist&redirect=no
I have access to the resources to create these pages and so I decided to do it.
They would remain redlinks until people know that they are here and have an opportunity to add more information on them, just like the USSC cases.
Please consider what I have written. We are trying to add value to the community by giving people access to these important US Appeals Court Cases.
Openjurist (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally...
The page you refer to as already having this information "readily available elsewhere":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reporter
Even states:
"The Federal Reporter, including its supplementary material, is also available on CD-ROM compilations, and on West's online legal database, Westlaw. Because individual court cases are identified by case citations that consist of printed page and volume numbers, the electronic text of the opinions incorporates the page numbers of the printed volumes with "star pagination" formatting—the numbers are boldfaced within brackets and with asterisks prepended (i.e., [*4]) to stand out from the rest of the text.
Though West has copyright over its original headnotes and keynotes, the opinions themselves are public domain and accordingly may be found in other sources, chiefly Lexis, Westlaw's competitor. Lexis also copies the star paginated Federal Reporter numbering in their text of the opinions to allow for proper citation, a practice that was the subject of an unsuccessful copyright lawsuit by West against the parent company of Lexis.[4]"
We are providing this information to the public online - not on a CD-ROM or through pay access to Westlaw or Lexis. We are working toward open access to case law. And we are hoping that Wikipedia would like to play a part in this open access.
Sincerely,
Openjurist (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way - we have added the page that gives access to all of the pages *just like for the USSC cases*:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_opinions_from_the_Federal_Reporter,_Second_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
Sincerely,
Openjurist (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete all "Delicious"? "New information"? It's nothing more than a bracketed table of contents from a 1949 volume of the Federal Reporter that's been sitting in law libraries for decades. No offense intended to Openjurist or Mboverload, but the two of you have bitten off more than you can chew. I voted to delete the Supreme Court project as well, for the same reasons. Not surprisingly, that attempt to reserve an article for each decision ever rendered by the United States Supreme Court has resulted in a few articles on cases that people are interested in, and lots of red-links for cases about which an article will probably never be written. It's easy to take a table of contents and put double brackets on each case for future articles, but you'll find that you don't have the time to do, pardon the pun, justice to the project. It's easy to slap one of these up, but I'll bet a $200 contribution to the Wikimedia foundation that both of you will give up on the project before the end of the year, and then you'll leave behind the mess of something started but never to be finished. Mandsford (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to meet notability requirements for wikipedia. The productions she has been in, although at some notable places, have all been as a student or as a "back up" in case the scheduled artist gets sick. Extensive searches for media coverage have turned up nothing but a passing mention of Shoremount-Obra in one news article and an advertisement for a non-notable recital. The facts of this page are based almost entirely on the subject's own website.Nrswanson (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:*Note Operanutbabe is a SPA, the creator of this article, and has made no contributions outside of this discussion and to the article in question.Nrswanson (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as verbatim copyvio. – iridescent 01:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy and sending it here as the UCLA connection might convey automatic notability. (Proceduaral/neutral) Dlohcierekim 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete says the editor who applied the declined speedy. "An article about a group or club that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." SISTER 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable strip mall. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a redundant list that just conglomerates the separate country articles (see here for full list). The separate lists are easier to maintain and won't get quite as big as the full European list. Tavix (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as web content that doesn't assert importance or significance (WP:CSD#A7). PeterSymonds (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Online children's TV series that does not provide any references for it's claims to notability. A google search does not provide anything either. roleplayer 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and not notable (the lede describes it as a failure). Adoniscik(t, c) 22:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is based around speculation and offers nothing to verify a sequel. Fails WP:Crystal. --FireV (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Shereth 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been seven months since this was last put at AFD, and there has been no assertion of any notability through reliable sources. This article is simply a repetition of plot trivia from various Star Trek episode articles plot sections in an in-universe way. It was closed as keep because the closer totally disregarded the requirement for reliable sources, and as you can see, it has none, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Unknowntbeast (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was kept by nominator withdrawal. Sceptre (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:SCHOOLS and WP:N, nothing to merge it into. Wizardman 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I'm satisfied with the article's improvements. Wizardman 14:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If someone wants to create a redirect I have no objection to that. Wizardman 03:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this page notable? Previous AfD suggested moving the content to another page, but since then the page has been recreated. It seems to be an advertising of User:Hpa. Nergaal (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Although this discussion has been listed for 12 days the nomination has not received any support whatsoever for deletion. Suggestion: such a radical proposal is best discussed at Village Pump before XfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Seascic T/C 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Gauss pseudospectral method is a pretty esoteric bit of mathematics. This piece of software is equally specialised. The article has been written by the principal developer of the program, Anil V. Rao. He himself admits that it is new and not yet notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person having no impressive career except his famous parents. Caspian blue (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to another article. Consensus is that the child is not notable except for her murder, and as such should not be the subject of her own article. The target article for the merger is to be decided on through the editorial process, as there is not yet consensus on which article would be most appropriate. Until that decision has been made, I am redirecting the article to Samir Kuntar. Sandstein 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Typical case of WP:MEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. Soman (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me you are joking. The murder of Einat Haran by Samir Kuntar, was covered world wide 30 years ago, and is still on the headlines. It is a matter of fact that WP mentions this brutal murder in several places. It is also a matter of fact that it is considered as the most brutal terror attack in the history of Israel. The motives for suggestion for deletion by Soman is the fact that he felt insulted in the Samir_Kuntar talk page... when he was explained that Samir Kuntar is no Nelson Mandela and smashing of toddlers heads is not considered as a heroic act in civilized nations.. (here he meant that this claim is racism..). Please block this Soman so he gets time to do homework on this issue. On.Elpeleg (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I made a start with adding one source from the Samir Kuntar article, but I would rather see more references to back up the notability of this event (which is horrid, don't get me wrong). De728631 (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On.Elpeleg (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1.) The article was first suggested for a speedy delete, because a lack of references-fixed and approved by the person whom suggested that. So speedy delete was removed.
2.) After that, it was added for a delete because WP biographical practice as a reason.
3.) The response for this was that the killer and the victim are both regarded as notable in different geographical locations and in different ways. Einat is regarded as the victim of "the most brutal terror attack in the history of Israel" in Israel, while in Lebanon the killer is regarded as a national hero. And therefore both should have an article and not just have the event itself covered. Thus the "one man, one event" where one may choose to write about the event and not the killer or victim, should not be applied here, both for notability and objective reasons.
4.) Last word from my big mouth.. and before the admins take their decision. One is not intended to write about each and every victim of this war either on the Palestinian side or the Israeli side, but in this specific case, the killer became notable because of the charges he was found guilty for. And having an article about him, without having an article about the very specific victim that made this killer notable is not a good covering of chronological or historian events. It is Einat Haran death and the way it happened that made Samir Kuntar notable and not the other way around, it is her age and what she saw before she was murdered in the most brutal way that made the event being regarded as the most brutal terror attack in the history of Israel. Please let Einat Haran article stay.
On.Elpeleg (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google search gave:
3,020 hits (all relevant) for "Einat Haran" with Safesearch on. (0.25 seconds)
3,690 hits (less then 1500 are relevant) for "Nasser Operation" with Safesearch on. (0.24 seconds)
1,340 hits (all relevant...unless I missed another Nasser, which is very common Arabic name) for "Nasser Operation" -egypt with Safesearch on. (0.25 seconds).
Please note that the second search also includes atleast 2000 hits on totally different and irrelevant operation by Nasser from Egypt.
Once again as shown, Einat Haran is more notable then the event. Please allow article to stay, documenting the victim of "the most brutal terror attack in the history of Israel".
672 hits for "Nasser Operation" kuntar with Safesearch on. (0.33 seconds)
Now can we start getting serious? Einat Haran is 5 times more notable then the event itself.On.Elpeleg (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just wanted to comment that in the Hebrew wikipedia they had the same dilemma. Eventually they decided to have two articles: one named "Samir Kuntar"[4] and the other named "1979 Naharia attack" [5].
The logic in this, as has been pointed out by George in [6] is that Samir Kuntar is a man notable of many deeds: (i) he was involved in one incident in Jordan in 1978, where he was captured and served a year in prison (for some reason it is hard to find online material on that), (ii) The murder of the Haran family in 1979 (iii) his release was Hezbollah's stated goal for capturing the two Israeli soldiers and initiating the 2006 Lebanon War (iv) he is notable for the 2008 Israel-Hezbollah prisoner swap (v) He is also notable for the hero's reception in Lebanon, the incident between Israel and Al-Jazeera TV [7] etc.
For this reason I believe that we should follow George and the example given by the Hebrew wikipedia, i,e, that there should be an article on Samir Kuntar and a separate article focusing on the "1979 Naharia attack" or Nasser Operation which will be dedicated to that particular incident, to the Haran family, and to how the murder of the 4 year old child was percieved in Israel.
Another similar example can be found in the two articles devoted to the Coastal Road massacre and its main perpetrator Dalal Mughrabi (whose body was also released in the 2008 Israel-Hezbollah prisoner swap).
Best,
Tkalisky (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Both Nasser Operation and Einat Haran should redirect to Samir Kuntar, since both subjects are notable only for Kuntar's involvement. -- Nudve (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Nasser operation is poor right now. But there is more information which I did not yet have time to insert. For example, Kuntar tried to kidnap another father and girl but they escaped when the corridor lights turned off (an otherwise annoying trait of Israeli apartment buildings ...). Also, there was a man who shot at Kuntar's group when they tried to enter his apartment and kidnap him. Also, at the trial, Smadar Haran was ordered to leave the courtroom for offending Samir Kuntar etc., PM Begin's speach at the funural. Also, it is important to state Danny Haran's profession, as some people today claim he was a nuclear scientists (Huh ?) [10] Anyway. Lots of stuff that is too detailed to insert into Samir Kuntar. Also, we need to include this incident in the listings of "Terror incidents" etc. and Samir Kuntar is not a good article for that (take the example of Coastal Road massacre and its main perpetrator Dalal Mughrabi). For this reason I think we need both Samir Kuntar and Nasser Operation. Best, Tkalisky (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability threshold of "available at a dozen or more libraries" in Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Threshold_standards. According to Worldcat, only listed in three libraries. Not listed at national library. Though there are some promotional sites, I found no indication of meeting Wikipedia:Notability (books) in the article or online. The article is little more than a promotional excerpt from the cover and marketing info. Although the author has one an award for The Comorant, I don't see him as sufficiently notable that this book would be automatically notable. cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Written like a resume, very promotional nature, all the while failing all the notability points of WP:BIO without any verifiable reliable sources. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, and admittedly, early. The consensus here is almost unanimous, and merging has been effectively refuted. The article creator has also opined delete. No need for this to go on longer. Keeper ǀ 76 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an in-universe description of how NLP uses one word, with no actual support for the term as a separate concept outside of the NLP walled garden. I think it's generally agreed that NLP is pseudoscience, and I believe that by giving credence to the idea that NLP has some special insight into the concept of rapport which is distinct from that described at rapport (a questionable premise, I think, but not really germane here) we are giving undue weight to a fringe view, in contravention of policy. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tour, just a setlist and list of tour dates. Hardly encyclopedic. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also nominating:
The result was SPEEDILY DELETED as a G4 recreation, previously deleted here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated article of a previous AfD, non-notable tour. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 16:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list should be deleted because all the information is already covered in the main Rugrats article and the character articles. Basically, this article is redundant. John Sloan (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Ecoleetage (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with WP:RS (the New York Times and San Jose Mercury News coverage just mentions the company in passing) and possible WP:CORP issues, too. It doesn't help that the article reads like an advertisement. The sun may not shine on this article for much longer. Nomination withdrawn Due to excellent referencing that confirmed the subject's notability. Thank you, one and all, for your comments Ecoleetage (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The newly added references come from strong media sources, admittedly, but their coverage is extremely weak -- they just mention that very young SunRun raised $12 million. I still don't see how the company fares in regard to WP:CORP or even WP:N. Any comments or additional sources that illuminate (no pun intended) the notability of the subject will be welcome. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--Tone 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally created this page for the results of the team that competed at the 1952 Games, mistakenly thinking that "China" in the official report referred to the team from the ROC instead of the PRC. When another editor created China at the 1952 Summer Olympics, I looked into it and discovered my error. I prodded this article (instead of deleting myself as I didn't think G7 was quite appropriate), but an anonymous IP editor removed the prod. My rationale for deletion is that all the articles in this series ("Nation at the year Olympics") are intended for the results of the teams that actually competed. Since the ROC withdrew before these Games, there are no results to report. The only content that could remain is better placed in articles like the main 1952 Summer Olympics article and the Chinese Taipei at the Olympics article, and I see that the anon. editor has actually made those edits. There is no additional or unique content that can be put in this article that isn't already described elsewhere, and it is confusing to have articles for teams that don't compete. We don't have Afghanistan at the 2000 Summer Olympics, for example, and when Brunei failed to appear in Beijing, we turned Brunei at the 2008 Summer Olympics into a redirect and added a fully referenced paragraph to the main article. I agree that the situation with PRC/ROC in 1952 is more complex than Brunei in 2008, but that does not warrant the need for a redundant "results" article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article for a fictional character, no notability outside community ViperSnake151 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussions of a redirect can take place on the talk page if so desired. Wizardman 02:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC states Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This single doesn't approach that status: leaked, off an album that is yet to be released, performed by one performer, no awards, and the performer has never charted at all. Kww (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography, fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Google search brings up only 2 results: the Wikipedia article and the forum/blog run by the subject. The article makes no assertion of notability, probably qualifies for WP:CSD#A7 but I wanted second opinions. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of a non notable. Also, there are no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there already is an article for High School Musical, there is no need for some obscure phenomenon that is supposed to have been triggered by it. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of three transit companies serving Mackinac Island, Michigan. Only one of them is a blue link, and since there're only three anyway, I see no purpose in a list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Pawtucket, Rhode Island. I was hoping for a section redirect, but there doesn't seem to be an "education" subheader in the city page, I'll poke around to see if I can find anything Keeper ǀ 76 19:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
School asserts no notability. Have tried redirecting to the locale article per WP:SCHOOL (now possibly defunct) and WP:OUTCOMES, but author keeps removing redirect. Would prefer to keep redirect, but requesting consensus to bring this to some conclusion. CultureDrone (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 17:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. I can't find anything on this on Billboard, Polyhex, AMG, Google ... . - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you deleting this? I spent so much time on research and making and you go and delet it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but please dont delete this, if you are suggesting they didnt exist then you are very wrong. I admit i was there biggest fan for ovious reasons as you can probably guess, but they even appeared on TOTP and buzzcocks and i even found a video on youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is, I have a old TOTP magazine which features an interview with them, so they obviously DO exist if there in a genuine TOTP magazine. And why would I make this up anyway, that would just be absolutley pointless after all the research and time i spent on making this article based on a REAL band. And i did find a youtube video of them performing at a gig in Bristol, but i remember i once posted a youtube URL link another page and Wikipedia told me I couldnt do it and deleted my link.
And your obviously not looking hard enough on google, because I managed to find a lot of information on them on google after a while of searching, which helped me to write the article. Some of it might not be true but its only what i read on the internet and from what i know being a fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright sorry for making a couple of mistakes, ill change it back to 90s, bu how come i can find info on them AND on youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a hoax! Why would i spend so much time writing up an aticle on a 'fake' band?! Seriously that would just be pointless. You people are not looking hard enough, If you do you WILL find pages on them on google, because I did, and you WILL find youtube videos of them because I did also. I WOULD post a youtube link, BUT i did that one and wikipedia deleted the link and told me I couldnt, so I wont attempt it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 13:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it DEFINETLY IS on google, after a few different searches inluding the words Queer Dale and a long time looking through pages I found information. Your all to quick to judge and dont respects the amount of research and time done on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
If you look at my history, I have only made appropriate edits and creations to wikipedia pages, so why would I creat a hoax article is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamandcheesemachine (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Viola! I found a picture of them, I dont know if anyone here is from Bristol, where Queer Dale originated. Now in Bristol, they have the Annual Harbour Festival, i found on a cached page (been updated because it was from 2007) after a lot of searching. I did not include this in the article because it was a one off event for the band, but they played in a pub nearby Bristol harbour for the event in 2007. In the picture its Brian Wilson on the left(hasnt changed much, has the same hair basically), then its Shane,Danny,and Dale on the right, a bit older fatter and uglier but....if you want to see the picture I am happy to show you, i am not sure about all the copyright and stuff so I wont uplaod it to the article without you wanting to see it first. And If you dont beleive me about the Bristol Harbour Festival, google that. --Hamandcheesemachine (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no assertion of notability.Playing the Bristol Harbour Festival for what you describe as 'a one off event' is not notable(they didn't even headline the event).There have been no charting albums or singles,no tours or collaborations with major artists,no major awards.Lemon martini (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actally they were famous in the 90s, thats why they featured in the Harbour Festival as a combeck. I will provide a link to Photobucket which features a picture of them. Queer Dale 07. Like I said, they a it older obviously. This picture was not actually taken by me, It was on a cached page from Bristol.gov.uk Events (was a cached page so has been updated) but I was at that performance.--Hamandcheesemachine (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed as redirect. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 19:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song, the song doesn't have a music video, unreferenced and didn't chart anywhere
The result was redirect to Melissa Schuman. Wizardman 02:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. When searching for "Lady Phoenix" Schuman a total of 5 gHits, 2 Wikipedia, 3 Myspace. The one item in the article that tries to show notability, interview by Vibe Magazine, when searching for either Lady Phoenix or Schuman on the Vibe website return no pertinent hits. The only criteria out of WP:Band that is plausible to show notability is #6. Melissa Schuman does have her own wiikpedia article (sourced only with self-published sources) for involvement in Dream but there does not seem to have enough notability to carry notability for this band. Jons63 (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. Article is actively being worked on. "Owl City" saltwater had a few hit on a google search, but nothing reliable. PirateArgh!!1! 17:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted (CSD A7) by Nyttend. NAC. Cliff smith talk 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. BMX bike park with no assertation of notability. CultureDrone (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete speculation, no factual basis for article IFCAR (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May be a G4, as a similar page was deleted before if I'm not mistaken (albeit under a different title). Fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A prod tag was removed with no apparent improvement to the text. The article's author is also the author of the only citation provided, there is no other evidence to suggest that this is anything except an invented term that's trying to be promoted here, and the term has a much larger number of Google hits with respect to crystallography. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jonathan.
I can see why you thought crystal mapping unworthy of an entry. All I can say is that I'm doing this in good faith but I'm not sure how to proceed vis a vis the 'promotion' issue and some of the other problems. You're right I am the author of the only citation - will it help if I cite someone else's article about the subject. Also re crystallography and google counts - how do I get round that? The two things are entirely different?
The background to the term and the subject is that crystal mapping is similar to concept mapping and mind mapping and a number of other such tools and processes but is distinctly different in the way it handles the subject and thus is a new method in its own right. The key to crystal mapping is the fact that it is based on a circle thus representing unity. I have a number of academics who would verify the uniqueness of the idea and process.
This is not a spam / spurious idea of any sort and it is a genuine belief on my part and of others that crystal mapping is a new method and process and the intention is to get it increasingly recognised as such.
Also I note that a brand of mind mapping software Mind Manager has a listing. Could I copy the way this has been listed for Crystal Mapping (i.e. as a branded product in the general area of mind mapping / concept mapping)as a start?
Thsnka in anticipation of your comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark wogan (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be a neologism being promoted here. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 19:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] Crystal Mapping Deletion status You are possibly right that it is a neologism - but thats a problem I'll have to deal with in a much more general sense than wiki entry. What if I use the term Crystal Map - would that cover off the neologism? I still can't figure how I can not promote the idea by entering it into wikipedia. Mind mapping promotes mind mapping and same for concept mapping? And surely mind manager is promting mind manager - thats advertising isnt it. I'm not trying here to sling any mud but i just dont know how else to make my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark wogan (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Mark wogan (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Most of what you need to hear from me/us is covered at WP:NEOLOGISM which states, among other things, "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." That's my rough guess at what's going on here. The crystallography term has many independent third-party citations and seems to be a recognized term within that scientific discipline. Yours was recently invented by you, and seems only to be used by you, and that's the difference. When the phrase gains widespread usage in mainstream media to refer to the process -- and not to the branded product or the book associated with it -- then someone other than yourself will doubtless be moved to create a Wikipedia article about it. Until that time, you might want to look into Wiktionary, which has less stringent qualifications for its neologistic entries. By the way, "X has an article so my article about Y should be allowed" is not accepted around here as a valid argument -- see the page at WP:WAX for a detailed explanation of why that is so. In the meantime, the most valuable thing you can do to make any points on Wikipedia policy that may be of use to you is not here, but at the deletion discussion that you can access by the link within the box at the top of the article; only arguments found in that area will be considered when the closing administrator decides the fate of the article. If you have any questions with which I can be of further assistance, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Accounting4Taste" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.4.101 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. This article does not meet notability criteria and thus has a serious problem. At the same time, numerous editors have expressed their opinion that this is an exceptional case where the GNG is insufficient as a test of notability and their opinions cannot be discounted here. Please note that this "no consensus" closure is not an endoresement of the status quo and interested editors should pursue a proper closure to the broader question of what the fate of this information is, whether that be through further researching and the addition of new sources, through the merging of this and similar "staple modern fantasy creatures" into a single article, or another solution. If the article's failing of current guidelines and/or policies is not remedied, there is no prejudice against a renomination in the near future. Shereth 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of the plot of various Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 book and game plot sections. It is therefore pure duplication, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete Author requested deletion under G7. So done. --Selket Talk 02:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. No sources whatsoever, my own search turned up only this article and news about a U.S. Olympic diver of the same name. Never actually competed at the Olympics and has apparently done nothing notable as a lawyer. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Not a confirmed single. Also, the reviews are for the cd, not the song. Undeath (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). There is a rough consensus to keep. As I can judge independent sources do exist, and I do not understand how a mere list of real events can "fail to maintain neutral point of view". Ruslik (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article consists of a list of attacks, many of them deliberate and against civilians, and attributes them to an organization, some of whose members may still be living. Statements of this nature should cite inline several strongly reliable sources. Instead, the main source for the claims is apparently not in English, and may be by militant sympathizers, who are not reliable secondary sources. Andjam (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as bravura editing by Eastmain and Paul Erik saved the day and established notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the company fails relevant notability requirements. Borderline spam and no indication of reliable third-party coverage: Ghits are either from the company's website, associated companies' websites or press releases. Pichpich (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. 3 gnews hits, all of which are passing mentions. 43 non-wiki ghits, most of which are blogs, myspace, or mentions of the death of the founder. One obit mentioned the promotion has existed for 20 years, so notability may be out there (which is why I'm bringing this to AfD rather than prodding), but my attempts to find reliable, independent sources haven't panned out. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another scientific term named after "Ronen," sourcing articles with only Y. Ronen as the author, and having no Google Scholar hits, and no google hits except Wikipedia clones. No third-party reliable sources or evidence of notability provided. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen's number.) -- SCZenz (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a silly spinoff of the Computer Rage article. No sources, no references; a non-notable neologism if you like iliteration. Ironholds 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is mostly a discussion of Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis, but it defines "Ronen's Number" as 10120. It was PROD'ed (by me) and deleted, with the concern being a lack of references. There are now six references in the article, but they do not appear to establish "Ronen's number" as a concept used in the sciences. Reference (1) is an elementary quantum mechanics texbook, apparently cited as a source for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. References (2-5) are papers by Dirac discussing the Large Numbers Hypothesis; none of them are indicated in the article to mention "Ronen's number" in particular, and I have double-checked this with paper copies of references (4) and (5). That leaves source (6), which I cannot access and may or may not define "Ronen's number," but it is in any case one paper, whose author list includes a Y. Ronen. I have not been able to find any discussion of this number elsewhere: no google hits except Wikipedia, no google scholar hits. Thus this concept, whether mentioned in the article or not, doesn't appear to have been noted or adopted as terminology by anyone. As such, it appears to be original research. I have requested clarification from User:Roneny, the creator of the article, and I'll make sure that (s)he knows about this discussion. SCZenz (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. the wub "?!" 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other articles Past main AfD Pikablu0530 (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a railway being planned might possibly be encycopaedic, but a station proposed on it should not be, at least until it is underconstruction. Many large Civil Engineering projects are proposed, but a great many of these are never constructed. If the article is right, no trains will run until 2020. Delete and Salt until 2018. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per A7. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic content Itemirus (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page has no verifiable, notable sources, and has been tagged as such since May 2008 Braindigitalis (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 17:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Non-admin closure. Speedily deleted under WP:SNOW as unlikely misspelling of cytoplasm. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article exists at cytoplasm; it's a misspelling. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is written largely around speculation about a musical group that was never formed. Entirely unreferenced. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect to Tetrodotoxin as a plausible typo per WP:BOLD. Non-admin close. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A fictional substance(?) StaticGull Talk 14:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See "Waiting for Christopher" below. Book by the same author, NN Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The BLP concerns in the article's history, as well as the state of the article after the BLP concerns have been resolved remain to be problematic. As the information that is left may be worthy of inclusion elsewhere, I will provide the text to interested editors who wish to use it for the expansion of related articles. Shereth 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references whatsoever for the article, which is rather worrying as it largely focuses on living people. Furthermore, it inherently violates WP:WTA#Scandal, affair, and I don't see what's so scandalous about the trademark ban or the existence of tougher drug tests. Sceptre (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable, but can't speedy. StaticGull Talk 13:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTE. Skeptic2 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. Malinaccier (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable song. Not released as a single. Media coverage? I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marshall is a non-notable local politician without any other notable qualities. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Donoghue Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted per G4 and WP:SNOW. Shereth 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real-world context, fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 13:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article for a non-notable Christian writer. Speedy declined because the article asserts notability with published works but nevertheless it completely fails the basic criteria of WP:BIO - no references which are "reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Google only turns up bookstores and a couple of Christian sites - in-group stuff, not independent. andy (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep The Dorothy Sargent Rosenberg Poetry Prize is a notable accomplishment. She has also had articles published by the Dallas Theological Seminary which one could say gives academic value to her work as a writer. We should assume good faith by the intention of the articles creator instead of assuming that this article is for promotional purposes.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
comment Marla was also a winner of the Writer’s Digest 76th Annual Writing Competition for Nonrhyming Poetry. Another notable competition for writers. I found that info on the fifth page of a yahoo search with her name as the search. I think the article needs some work, but it seems to pass notability. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - I think the question here is that without any reliable sources specifically about the author are the two awards enough to provide notability. I am leaning toward a keep for this. Anyone else have any comments? --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising (WP:CSD#G11). PeterSymonds (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Event planning, as it is a duplicate. - Nabla (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate for deletion - A non-notable topic, drifting into a how-to, prod was removed --T-rex 13:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as notability is confirmed...and, truth be told, I never met a Lukwata I didn't like! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. Only two sources given, and none of them is RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not at my main computer at the moment but i'll try to address these problems somewhat. i think this article is notable, if re-written to show more of a mythological perspective that the external links don't show. also, i'm working on tracking down all my original sources, the first one, which i've just added, is a old journal from the university of michigan, and (from my skimmings of RS) probably qualifies as a reliable source. i'll be better equiped to handle this by saturday, when i get home. thanks Ryan shell (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- Ten minutes on google convinced me this is the African equivalent of the Loch Ness Monster. Afd process wrongly invoked here. The process shouldn't be used as a shortcut to getting someone else to do the fact-checking.--S Marshall (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:RS. The subject has some coverage in only one source [16], google news shows 19 ghits [17], but no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:N. Even if there is some coverage in news sources, it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Unverified unsourced probable hoax. Self-promotion? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is spam or OR. Regardless, I couldn't dig up any sources for it. BJTalk 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I declined a speedy WP:CSD#A7 as the article claims notability (just) - however the subject appears to have only competed at amateur level. Nothing at a first glance on Google and the supplied references didn't seem overly supportive. Seems to fail WP:N. Recommend delete. Pedro : Chat 12:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of previously prodded article. Original reason for deletion remains, this is a non-notable organization with the article based exclusively upon the claims of said organization. Delete unless sufficient independent sources are provided to allow for a neutral and verifiable article. --Allen3 talk 11:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised the listing has received this level of scrutiny, given the extensive collection of similar trade associations already in and approved for Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I offer this:
DMAA: The Care Continuum Alliance is a well-established and widely recognized trade association for companies and organizations that provide prevention, wellness, disease management and other population health services. DMAA (and under its previous name, "Disease Management Association of America") has been cited extensively in the trade and popular press over the past decade. Below are citations for only a sampling of that coverage, which includes stories exclusively on DMAA activites, stories in which DMAA leaders are quoted and stories referencing the organization's work:
Abruzzo, Mark D. (2000). "Despite What You Hear, State Privacy Statutes No Threat to DM," Managed Care magazine. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0004/0004.legal.html
Eisenberg, Daniel (2001-08-20). "Take Your Medicine," Time magazine. Retrieved 2008-08-13. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1000614,00.html
Fruedenheim, Milt (2002-02-17). "MONEY & MEDICINE; Bedside Visits, on the Telephone," New York Times.
(2002-12-29). "Corporate Corner," St. Paul Pioneer-Press.
(2003-09-03) "Cost control quest leads to disease management," Employee Benefit Adviser.
Pear, Robert (2003-12-03). "Health Industry Bidding to Hire Medicare Chief," New York Times.
Uhlman, Marian (2003-12-29). "Patients' failure to take medicines undermines medical advances," The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Mulder, James T. (2004-02-08) "Health Works! Employers Take the Lead in Encouraging Wellnessa and Helping Workers Manage Chronic Disease," The Post-Standard (Syracuse, N.Y.).
Zablocki, Elaine (2004-09-01). "DMAA seeks consensus on DM outcome measures," Managed Healthcare Executive magazine. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/mhe/Disease+Management/DMAA-seeks-consensus-on-DM-outcome-measures/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/121921?searchString=DMAA
Belli, Anne (2004-12-28). "Programs aim to control health-care costs by managing diabetes, other diseases," Houston Chronicle.
Carroll, John (2004). "DM Standards Off and Crawling," Managed Care magazine. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0402/0402.dm_standards.html
ElBoghdady, Dina (2005-08-02). "A Nurse's Healing Touch, by Telephone; Medicare Program Uses Call Centers," The Washington Post, page D-4. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080200310_pf.html
Glabman, Maureen (2005). "12 DM Trends You Should Know About," Managed Care magazine. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0508/0508.twelvedmtrends.html
(2006-03-27). "Excellent health benefits help attract, retain top employees," San Diego Business Journal.
Glabman, Maureen (2006). "'Take My Word for It': The Enduring Dispute Over Measuring DM's Economic Value," Managed Care magazine, Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0604/0604.dmvalue.html
Butler, Kelley (2007-01-05). "Solving a benefits Sudoku," Employee Benefit News. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://ebn.benefitnews.com/asset/article/39743/solving-benefits-sudoku.html?pg=
Willett, Hugh G. (2007-04-20). "30 percent of employers offer wellness programs; more planned," Knoxville News-Sentinel.
Benko, Laura B. (2007-01-15). "Payers and Purchasers: Numbers that count - Disease-management industry is taking steps to deliver more reliability, consistency in data on program outcomes," Modern Healthcare magazine.
Bridgeford, Lydell C. (2007-07-24). "Health care reform must recognize chronic care," Employee Benefit News. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://ebn.benefitnews.com/asset/article/151769/health-care-reform-must-recognize-chronic.html?pg=
Vesely, Rebecca. (2007-09-18). "Reporter's Notebook: Disease-management group looks to larger role," Modern Healthcare magazine.
Llewellynm Anne (2006-12-11). "Disease Management Outcomes Guidelines Report," Dorland Healthcare Information, Retrieved on 2008-08-13.
Krizner, Ken (2008-01-01). "Updated Disease Management Guidelines Impact Investment Perspectives," Managed Healthcare Executive magazine. Retrieved on 2008-08-13. http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/mhe/Disease+Management/Updated-Disease-Management-Guidelines-Impact-Inves/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/482217?searchString=DMAA
Additionally, DMAA is a recognized partner organization of groups with similar interests in chronic disease. See the member listings at these links:
The Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease: http://www.fightchronicdisease.org/about/partners.cfm
Strategies to Overcome and Prevent (STOP) Obesity Alliance: http://www.stopobesityalliance.org/members.htm
Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative: http://www.pcpcc.net/content/executive-committee
National Quality Forum http://www.qualityforum.org/pdf/list_of_members.pdf
Please let me know if you need further documentation of our organizational status. Thank you for your consideration. Cgrazian (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. 99.207.177.26 (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To what, specifically, do you object? "Rewrite" isn't much direction for making this article comply. Thanks. Cgrazian (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I have reviewed the article, and must conclude that the sources/external links in the article make no mention of the subject, so the verifiability issues are unresolved. As an example of things which are strange, among the links are one to the Royal Horticultural Society, which comes out of the blue and has nothing about this. Since WP:V is a core policy and and an extremely important element for ensuring that Wikipedia's articles remain factual, those requirements cannot be lowered as has been suggested. If someone has sources which actually mention JOCPT, then this can be reconsidered. At present, I am closing this as delete since there is insufficient evidence that this actually exists. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources to show notability or even existence. No ghits, suspect WP:HOAX. Author removed PROD without offering a reason. JD554 (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have started this article in order to attract more information on this important stage of British military history. As yet there are no official books or any other written histories. And yet this is the stage when the British Army moved its battle control systems from the middle ages to the computerised age. Mercurius (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put in a request to the admin officer of the Royal Signals Association to see if members can produce the necessary newspaper and magazine articles, and and book references. Mercurius (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put in a request to the Ministry of Defence under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for confirmation of the existence of JOCPT, the names of its personnel, its terms of reference and its achievements. The process will take up to 20 days. Mercurius (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an aviation wiki. It lacks reliable sources verifying that the web site is notable, and I didn't see evidence of notability when I conducted a google search. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. One possible secondary source to confirm notability has been brought up, and assuming the link provided by captain tucker leads to a non-trivial mention of the subject, the subject would meet the bare minimum of the GNG. Further research and scrutiny of sources is warranted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources that I can find are book sale sites and pages with only a short plot summary. Schuym1 (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that this subject is insufficiently notable for inclusion. As it is a potential search term, it will be recreated as a redirect to The Sims. After reviewing the article and the target there's really nothing here worth merging, but I am willing to provide a userfied version of this article if someone requests it for the purpose of expanding related articles. Shereth 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. No reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Expand To Clarify my current postion: I belive that Mortimer does not on his own meet WP:N, but that the family as a whole can, therefore I propose the article should be merged with those on Bella Goth and Cassandra Goth into something like Goth family (Sims Seris) - with information on Alexander Goth as well, if he's deemed noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NullofWest (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, per WP:CORP. Created by User:Angel Medflight who obviously has a conflict of interest in the matter. Contested prod. Arsenikk (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge with List of Doraemon media. Later split-out may become feasible as more information becomes available to support a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD G7 - first editor's request. Pegasus «C¦T» 09:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
article focused on the history of a specific domain name ccwaters (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CCWaters, do you think I should change the article so that it follows the current Gazelle.com company instead of all of them? (In fact, the current company is the most notable in terms of press sources.). rllerner
Alright. That makes sense. I guess I will change the page so that it covers the company instead.Rllerner (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references to denote notability of the characters in this game. This is largely a plot summary and consists of some WP:GAMETRIVIA and game guide material (for example, detailing how interacting with some characters "opens up" side quests, or how others can help improve your in-game skills) that contravenes WP:NOT#GUIDE. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of this article has already been discussed, and rejected. Why is it being brought up again? -FeralDruid (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
*Delete. No reliable sources (NOTE: I am not happy about the sources presented above - so don't lecture me about them). --Hank Pym (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mayalld, convert into category. Wongm (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is this a list of notable things? This is the sort of cruft which gets 2.5M pages Annette46 (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable driver. References listed don't actually explain what they are referencing or indicate notability. –– Lid(Talk) 08:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Michael Aquino. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was it's just like, it's just like, a no consensus. the wub "?!" 12:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, oh no! This don't pass 'em, not the Market. I'm talkin' 'bout Flea Market. Montgomery. It's just like, it's just like, a mini-mall! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC) (note this is a serious AfD, I just decided to take some liberties with the nomination) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
High school student and budding filmmaker. Sole claim to notability is what appears to be a fairly minor award, and I don't think this is enough to meet WP:BIO. Article also has a COI issue; not too difficult to figure out who User:Ienthekorean is. PC78 (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Ien Chi" Crippled
[32] returns 6 hits, none relevant. Nearly no relevant Ghits for anything else on him either. - Icewedge (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chart with no indication of notability. Brought to us by Pollis (talk · contribs), who created and re-created the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart and who does not appear to be here for much more than writing articles about charts published by the "Mediatraffic" company. Sandstein 06:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), passes WP:MUSIC. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic and is written in greek Loquacious conundrum (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This artist appears to fail WP:MUSIC, and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR essay. Failed prod by author removal. Toddst1 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax. I can't find any evidence that this place in France exists. An article exists in the French Wikipedia, but I have nominated that article for deletion as well for the same reason. The French AfD discussion is here. The INSEE code (19023) shown in the article belongs to Beynat. All towns are notable, except for hoaxes. Eastmain (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Eastmain. I could find no evidence of the existence of this commune in France. I looked in Google, the Corrèze department's website, my AA 2005 Maxi Atlas France and found no references. I checked the French Wikipedia, and found that the INSEE code on that article (19014) is for the commune of Auriac, Corrèze. Kiwipete (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain that this person meets WP:BIO. He has received a few awards and has held a few positions, but at the same time I'm having great trouble finding reliable sources about him in detail, at least online, and book sources covering him in detail have not been proven to exist. Deepecologyfanboi (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A crufty list that is impossible to define and impossible to maintain. —G716 <T·C> 04:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. A rename to remove the word "important" from the article is probably a good idea but beyond the scope of this AfD closure to dictate. Shereth 16:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a disorganized list that is impossible to define and almost as impossible to maintain. It appears to have been abandoned and now appears to be a repository for 'favorite textbooks.' —G716 <T·C> 04:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The author seems to think giving context is unnecessary. I am dubious about the notability of MERRY EXPO -Book of global exchange- which is the context. But as for this Merry Project article it is simply a catalogue of dates. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable film LAAFan 03:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I chose not to create an article for this movie until I was able to specifically make sure I had a copy of it in my hands and I knew that it would be debuting on the same television channel the other three in the series had within less than a month. Another user was the one who changed the link of the main Donald Strachey page to reflect that Ice Blues was out with a definite rather than speculative year of release, not me, and it's only because he had done so (after he'd personally watched the movie through official channels) that I followed his lead before even making the decision to perhaps create an article for this movie at some point in the future when there were enough factors for creation of a stub to be appropriate, and furthermore this user is an admin. I am not sure about the hierarchy here at Wikipedia, but from what I have looked for and not found on their user pages, neither of the two people who are pushing hardest for deletion of this article can say that about themselves. Hopefully, it takes more than jumping on an article faster than white on rice with inaccurate speedy deletions that are changed later to deletions and then pretending that those speedy deletions didn't occur mere minutes ago to earn that coveted status.
I have been avoiding even coming back to this page for several days because of this "debate". Time that could have been spent updating it. Frankly, all this kind of thing does is dampen my enthusiasm for Wikipedia, and perhaps enthusiasm in general from many potentially very useful contributors.
I also find it highly suspicious and distasteful that the same person who seemed to be "helping" me avoid 'speedy' deletion also wound up recommending that this be deleted, particularly when he didn't seem to waste any time pointing out "incorrect" use of hang-on tags, but didn't seem to take the time to do the research to verify that this movie is clearly not a hoax. In other spheres we call that "concern trolling". FYI, the article *WAS* nominated for speedy deletion, in fact the nominator actually, whether deliberately or inadvertently, sent a speedy deletion notice for the movie to me twice. The first time, nominator got the impression that the article was about "a person or group of people" despite the fact that the stub clearly stated that it was a movie. The second time, nominator thought it was about a "club"; again, information clearly stated what the article is about. After realizing neither was correct, nominator decided the film was "unremarkable", at least once (s)he figured out it was a film.
If before nominating this article for deletion (speedy or otherwise), users concerned about the article's conformability to notability requirements (let alone that the existence of the movie was entirely a hoax) had gone to the entries for the first, second, and/or third movie(s) in this series (clearly linked from the stub article), and checked those pages' histories, they would have found out that a) they are movies, b) not only are they obviously not hoaxes, but c) the articles for said three earlier films have all been going through an ongoing process of modification -- the second and third had started as stubs but are largely becoming full articles -- before this whole 'controversy' started, I was even working on synopses for all four, starting with the first. The distaste caused by some people who clearly want this page deleted has turned me off of putting the same degree of effort into updating it since the rush to delete started. Hopefully this debate will be closed at some point soon and I can get back to work on fleshing it out as I have the others, and continuing the process with the others as well, which are far from full-fledged articles worthy of a finished Wiki product.
Perhaps a silver lining to this is that it got some of these movies noticed by others and those who are better versed at what are suitable for footnotes and citations have added some. I would welcome similar notations on the entries for the other Strachey movies; specifically, this one. Also, a citation for Shock to the System's screening at the Outfest film festival (as noted in its article) might be helpful; here's a tip on where to start. While I've got people's attention, I'd welcome tips from more experience Wikipedians on how best to pursue a section on how the books differ from the movies; should I just put a general overview on the main Strachey section or compile things specific to each individual movie vs. the corresponding book it's adapted from? Any tips would be appreciated, and I can fill in the gaps for people who have little or no info on the individual books/movies.
I had more to say about this, and more comparisons to be made to other articles that should and were kept by overwhelming consensus simply by factors analogous to the mere fact that a series of books that began in '81 and (presumably) ended in '03 have been adapted into films, it meets Wikipedia's notability standards (citing other comparable articles where the deletes were overwhelmingly outnumbered), but I'm guessing my point has been sufficiently made and I won't get into that. I trust that a consensus is being forged and this discussion can soon be considered closed. Homoaffectional (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008#District 8. I would suggest that interested editors revisit this issue post-election to determine whether the provided sourcing indicates sufficiently notability for a standalone article, but should not be restored prior to that without the emergence of significant new sourcing. As there is no consensus to delete this material, the edit history is preserved beneath the redirect. Shereth 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO Manion is a first time congressional candidate with pretty much no notability prior to the campaign. If he wins, then obviously he is notable, but any assumption about future notability would be more or less crystal balling. Montco (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced claims and unverifiable notability. Article has been deleted and recreated several times. — Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 03:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE and REDIRECT: Not notable, he has been involved in much bigger business ventures. It should e redirected to the Michael Jackson article, where a short about it can be added if necessary. — Realist2 15:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Wizardman 03:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Not notable at all, a collection of trivia at best. — Realist2 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Not notable, he has been involved in much bigger business ventures. At the moment nothing important has really occurred that would justify the need for an article. — Realist2 16:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks notability, also major neutrality and BLP issues. — Realist2 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not some show on some obscure cable company —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.201.24 (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV Funhouse, not enough notability for a standalone article but can be mentioned in TV Funhouse article. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this is a serial within the TV Funhouse series, it has enough notoriety to stand on its own. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 21:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 03:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possible Redirect: Lacks notability, no music video, not an official single, appeared on a very minor chart. Might be worth redirecting to "Earth Song" — Realist2 17:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A track on HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I that though not released as a single, received considerable airplay within the year following album's release. A news archive search of the years 1995-96 reveals plenty of WP:RS describing this song. Sebwite (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a few more sources i would love to add, including an excerpt from an interview with the late Notorious B.I.G. on how he reacted when MJ called him to collaborate. i will try and add it shortly. Also, i dont see why it should be tacked onto "Earth Song", seeing as how it was released promotionally on its own accord.MaJic (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks notability, amounts to promotion or advertising. — Realist2 17:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Jonas Brothers. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this show was going to be named J.O.N.A.S, but now it's untitled, and it was going to have spies, and now it's not, and maybe it'll be like Flight of the Conchords, but maybe not, but there aren't any reliable sources for this, except maybe a Good Morning America interview, but no one bothered to remember what date the Good Morning America interview happened, so we can't use it as a source either, but I'm sure whatever these guys do will be really neat, because they're the Jonas Brothers. Maybe there could have been an article about it, too, but this thing certainly isn't it. Kww (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Done by Orangemike under G3 criteria. Malinaccier (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for "Clear Channel Communications" and "Max Kliegle" returns one self-promotional site. A hoax? SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC) The website is not Self Promotional. Nfanslim (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. You were wrong. Nfanslim (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only claim to notability is that she's married to Jack Black, which is a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per speedy keep, nom withdrawn, no deletes. Ty 15:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist, only slight claim to fame is having done the cover art for a Sonic Youth album, which doesn't seem to be enough to make her notable. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marnie Weber is represented by a major contemporary art gallery, one of the most acclaimed in the US. Her work is in notable collections and institutions around the globe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.239.171.246 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Patrick Painter in Los Angeles, Praz-Delavallade in Paris, Marc Jancou Contemporary in New York, and Simon Lee in London? Are these major enough? Her work is also in the permanent collection at LACMA. If you'd like me to get more specific, I'd be happy to provide you with the artist's extensive CV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamstamp (talk • contribs) 00:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. I would suggest a merge to one of those other links. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not notable? I'm in the process of including more references. Wlmg (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have citations for Blieder Drive from three novels, one television series, and a comic book. Imho it is a notable article and worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. Wlmg (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge Sceptre (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains basically the same information as Vehicle registration plates of New Brunswick, and there is no need to split the information between an article "History of..." and another "Vehicle registration plates of..." as these articles contain the same information. One of the articles should either be deleted or redirected to the other. Canjth (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all similar duplicating of information on Canadian license plates in other jurisdictions:
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dicey neologism - a Google search doesn't confirm its definition. A speedy delete was swatted away -- let's roll this and see what comes up. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Malinaccier (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
seems like a copyvio from this Global Politician page Xorkl000 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 15:13, 18 August 2008 (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)) . |
Delete: Lacks notability. She's only known for being Michael Jackson's spokes person during his 2005 trial. I'm nearly 100% sure he has since fired her so I cant see any further notable events to come. — Realist2 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
been a trailblazer in the sports and entertainment industries. These comments to delete her bio seem quite petty and spewed with venom. She has represented a variety of athletes and entertainers including Marvelous Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Hector "Macho"Camacho, The Kings of Comedy, AKA Bernie Mac, Steve Harvey, D.L. Hughley and Cedric the Entertainer. It is without question she is the most efficient and effective spokesperson Michael Jackson has ever had. These comments also reflect that the writers are ignorant of Ms. Bain's continued role with Mr. Jackson and should read the Washington Post's October 8, 2007 profile of her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swelvekid (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raymone Bain. Her bio should not be deleted. Sports, Entertainment, Politics... she is a major player. Bobette1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobette1 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] |
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to follow precedent: "Larger neighborhoods are acceptable, but its name must have verifiable widespread usage". The name has some usage (mostly phonebooks), but I can't see how anything is verifiable by people who don't live there except to piece together stuff from phonebooks and company sites which would be OR. PirateArgh!!1! 00:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 15:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary sub-article - subject adequately covered by List of designated terrorist organizations. Also, the opening line contains a somewhat dubious definition. PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW; easily meets WP:ATHLETE. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable athlete who didn't win any medals at the Olympics. If we have an article for her, why not have articles for each and every athlete who ever competed at the Olympics? Kilmverdarkness (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was I'd hate to accuse another user of making a bad faith nom, so call it a snowball keep as MP's are inherently notable. User:Dlohcierekim
non-notable person and fails WP:Notability guidelines Oaktreebrand (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]