< January 9 | January 11 > |
---|
The result was lies. DS (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC) I can find no reference to "fannibyte" or the "fanni" prefix anywhere in the SI documentation. Creation and edit history indicate that this is a hoax, if not actual vandalism. Bagheera (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Was speedied under WP:CSD#G11. Has a few links but they seem to be merely Press Releases or trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another vague, original research/rumour-filled (some of it going back to 2005!) article about a supposed upcoming album. References cited are message board-sourced and no longer work anyway. Once again, we also have a huge unreferenced list of 'confirmed tracks' and supposed producers too (anyone else notice how Timbaland always seems to be listed on these things?). Delete (without prejudice for recreation if anything official is announced) per WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep for now. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product, proprietary to Phase Technologies, LLC, who is the only manufacturer of digital phase converters according to the author. I tried finding a reference but the author wrote that the only decent one I found was a sham site. See the talk page. Failed ((prod)) Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
United States Patent 6,297,971 Meiners October 2, 2001 Phase converter Abstract A phase converter that converts single phase AC electric power to balanced three phase AC power. Two input terminal connected to the output of a single phase AC power source connect directly to two output terminals of the converter. The phase converter has two serially connected storage capacitors with a common connection, a charging circuit for controlled charging the storage capacitors and an output circuit for controlled discharge of the storage capacitors to provide single phase AC power to a third output terminal. The charging circuit controls input to the storage capacitor to provide a sinusoidal input current and to step up the voltage to the storage capacitors. The output circuit provides output power to the third output terminal of a predetermined phase and amplitude, relative to the other two output terminals, to result in balanced three phase AC power at the three output terminals. The phase converter provides balanced three phase output for leading power factor, lagging power factor, and resistive loads. Inventors: Meiners; Larry G. (Rapid City, SD) Assignee: Phase Technologies, LLC (Rapid City, SD)
Appl. No.: 09/638,230 Filed: August 14, 2000 Additionally, Dr. Meiners whitepage document has all significant information http://www.phaseperfect.com/files/phasewhitepaper.pdf Soothsayer2Soothsayer2 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In accordance with the original definition of the term "patent," patents facilitate and encourage disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good."(Wikipedia) Soothsayer2 (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article "demonstrates" that financial transactions are subject to the laws of space/time, which is self-evident. If this article were necessary, you could replace "finance" by any noun and have a potential article. Non-notable, possibly WP:FRINGE, possibly no reliable sources (both sources seem to be from one author) Accounting4Taste:talk 23:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"John Wiley & Sons, Inc., often referred to as Wiley, is a well-known publishing company specializing in scientific, technical, business related texts, and medical books and journals." I guess wikipedia just is joking?
Presented at Courant Mathematical Institute New York: http://math.nyu.edu/fellows_fin_math/gatheral/case_studies.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teller33 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"his article "demonstrates" that financial transactions are subject to the laws of space/time, which is self-evident. If this article were necessary, you could replace "finance" by any noun and have a potential article." I assume this is why the author is invited to give talks about this subject and to write a book about it by a a publisher that according to wikipedia "a well-known publishing company specializing in scientific, technical, business related texts" seems inconsistent to me, but I guess that is what happens when everyone can edit wikipedia.unsigned comment added by Teller33 (talk • contribs) 11 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was transwiki to Wiktionary, then DELETE. --VS talk 10:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another pipe for smoking which is not all that notable and lacks anything other than original research. Suggest removal on grounds of both (lack of) notability and verifiability. Delete. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover: That you saw this article as the second result does not change what comes up as the first result. Despite my saying that research involves actually reading what the search engine turns up, you apparently have still not actually read the first page that your search turns up, to see that it is indeed an out-of-date Wikipedia mirror, as it openly states.
Verification that something exists that is not what is required at AFD. What are required to make a valid keep argument at AFD, rebutting arguments that an article is unverifiable and original research, are sources, per deletion policy. That the object exists is irrelevant, and is not a valid argument. The plot of grassland to the west of my house exists. Despite the fact that I mentioned our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies, the only counter to which is to show that sources exist, you have still to make a valid argument that holds water, have still to cite even a single source, and have still to make any case at all for keeping the article. You are propounding several of the classic fallacies, instead. Please learn to not repeat these long-since-debunked and fallacious arguments at AFD. Once again: Counting Google hits is not research, and search results are not sources. Please familiarize yourself with our deletion and content policies.
Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Sourced. Torc2 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable tag team as of yet. Nikki311 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per CSD A1 (just an infobox) & G1, with a smattering of G3.SkierRMH (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another hoax from the creator of Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1955 film). No such movie, as even the briefest of perusals of the participants' imdb pages will attest Corvus cornixtalk 23:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete by User:John Reaves made up (non-admin closure). —Travistalk 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax? IMDB doesn't know anything about this film, and I can't find any meaningful hits when I google "'Killer Klowns from Outer Space' 1955". Corvus cornixtalk 22:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a notable or verifiable type of cannabis pipe and thus I ask that the article be removed. Delete. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --VS talk 10:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, there is no notability for Mrs. Gravel presented in the article. Just being the wife of a candidate does not make her notable. Metros (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete by User:AliveFreeHappy CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringement (non-admin closure). —Travistalk 00:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a terrible article. It does not explain what the subject of the article actually is. Its main text is the exact same ~40 words as when it was created nearly three years ago and when it was tagged for context nearly two and a half years ago. It reads like (very bad) advertising copy. If anybody was going to improve it, or chooses to improve it now to save it from deletion (as apparently there are vast multitudes of people who consider it a vitally important article, judging by the speed with which they removed my speedy and prod today), they have no excuse for not doing it before now. Propaniac (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect, merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unrefferenced article about an automobile that may or may not exist in the future. Purely editor speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Roguegeek (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rejected because of claim of notability. It's an advert for a self-help guru so the article calls him "notable", of course, but there are no references to support this claim. Very few ghits, mostly from a few TV interviews. Just another pundit. Fails WP:NN, WP:VERIFY andy (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Have paid careful attention to this complex debate and all present and past comments. I note that it has been said some of the content may be salvageable to other articles and the thought of that task has been described as being a nightmare - however I assume the keep proponents will assist in that task. I will be happy to assist in cut and paste to a sandbox if that has not already been undertaken.--VS talk 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD debate was closed as "no consensus" with the admonition: A conversation about merging and renaming can happen on the article talk page. Certainly the article seems redundant with other history articles, but that's easily dealt with. It has not been "dealt with", and the editor who is dominating this space to the point of WP:OWN has only more completely dominated this article in the past few months. The article is so perversely authored, nobody wishes to even attempt improving it. John Russ Finley (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some Refs Note more than two.
Dejvid (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't followed any of this debate, nor am I very familiar with wikipedia's various "History of X" articles. So I don't feel like offering a support/delete opinion, but have a few thoughts and questions.
First, it seems most here agree that the term History of western Eurasia is not so great and is probably not worth keeping. As for a better term, I'm not sure one exists, nor is one needed. Rather than searching for a name I want to ask, as User:Serpent's Choice did, What is this article the history of? Reading the article it seems fairly clear. It is a history of the Mediterranean and surrounding regions, from ancient to modern times. Or, one might call it a history of Europe and surrounding regions, as Europe and the Mediterranean are so closely linked. The larger context includes a vast area reaching from the Indus River to the Atlantic Ocean and from the Sahara to the Arctic. Makes sense to me. How can you meaningfully describe Mediterranean/European history without this larger context?
Slight tangent: I understand why articles like "History of X" and "Geography of X" tend to be broken down by continent and country, but I hope people don't therefore think the "History of X" does not involve A, B, and C! I mean, take an overly silly example -- in European history there were a number of crusades during which armies traveled to a place outside of Europe (see History of Asia). Silly, yes, but the point is that the history of Europe, (north Africa), and (parts of) Asia are so deeply entwined as to be inseparable. I think, maybe, that is what this "western Eurasian" article is trying to address.
On the other hand, the History of Europe page already does a somewhat decent job of ignoring that invisible Europe-ends-here line and readily incorporates info about Egypt, Persia, India, Siberia, and so on. It is perhaps a bit lacking in the history of Islam, which deserves more attention if only for its profound effect on European history. The History of western Eurasia page may have a better start on that.
Finally, a thought on McEvedy and his geographic delineation. It seems to me that one of his goals was to create a historical atlas in which every map would cover the exact same area at the same scale. If I understand it, he hoped that this method would help convey a consistency to an otherwise chaotic and confusing history. You can compare any two maps and see at a glance the chances from place to place over time. That makes sense. But it seems worth noting that he was creating historical atlases, not mainly-prose articles. In an article there is less need to be strict about the geographical boundary of study. If suddenly you need to describes events in China it is not going to ruin the article focus.
Sorry for being so wordy, I'm done now! Maybe now I'll get around to writing that Maritime History of the Indian Ocean from Zanazibar to the Moluccas. :-) Pfly (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is lacked here. Ohmpandya (Talk) 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete by Anthony.bradbury as G1. Non-admin close--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Smooky[edit]Non-notable neoglism, pure dictionary definition. Sourced (improperly) through Wiktionary. Propose delete under WP:NOT#DICT. Redfarmer (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Veronica Grey[edit]
IMDB entry indicates tiny number of non-significant roles, biography is self-penned by subject. Publications appear to be vanity press imprints. Overall, appears not to meet WP:BIO. Reads like self-written promotion. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable direct to video film. Nothing to distinguish it from any number of other cheaply made product franchise films. The article isn't much more than a plot outline. WebHamster 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable direct to video film that has not yet been released. Prod removed by article creator without comment. WebHamster 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under criterion G3: creation of the article, a duplicate of The realm of no!, was to disrupt the AfD process there. —C.Fred (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Die Republikaner auf Nein[edit]
Also included in this AfD for the same reason:
Non-notable module for Dungeons & Dragons. Article admits the module was never mass published and only references are to forum postings. Redfarmer (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a1, no substance, all speculation, see WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Bullets of Vengeance[edit]
Speculation on an upcoming manga. Falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Redfarmer (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge/Redirect with district. JERRY talk contribs 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sub high school level schools are not considered notable unless there is a specific event or qualifier that gives them a claim to such notability Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete, G10 by ArnoldReinhold, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] James Badro[edit]Biography that doesn't provide evidence of notability (only claims it). Possibly a joke article, or just an autobiography of a NN person (see: "His current principal research interest is measuring the softness of armchairs and observing the insides of his eyelids.", "holds the world record for the 1500 metre nap", "[....] but his parents emigrated to France because they could stand boiled andouillette with mint sauce." [11]) — TheBilly(Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Molten Group[edit]This article has been speedily deleted at least three times, but the editor has returned under two usernames to repost. Hopefully an AfD can settle this. My reason for nominating is that notability is not proven as per WP:N. The article seems to stake notability from being shortlisted for the "National Busines Awards", in fact it was shortlisted for a regional heat and, presumably progressed no further. It also states that a director was finalist for Female Entrepreneur of the Year, but the link reveals that the competition required an self-nomination and entry fee. The second nomination was for Young Entrepreneur of the Year, but again this was a self-nomination (although without an entry fee). I don't think either awards confer notability to Wikipedia's standards. Neither the group or individual have actually won any of these awards. I've tried to find some notability, but Google returns only a few hits limited to their own website, Wikipedia, LinkedIn and a few jobsites. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Username Just to assure you that the only reason a second username was created was to conform by Wikipedia guidelines that recommended not to use the first user name but to create a new one. So this is the reason for the new posting. Repostings First speedy deletion warning: Blatant Advertising Initially you wrote to say all it required was a reference list which we added. As a new contributor that did not fully understand the process - the article was reposted. Second speedy deletion warning: Notability It was recommended to rewrite the article in its entirety. This was done and reposted. Third speedy deletion warning: was back to 'Blatant Advertising' and then changed to 'Notability'. This is what is being discussed presently. Awards The above mentioned awards attract much attention with small companies and both finalist and winners are noteworthy. You mention that some awards were self nomination, it is worth mentioning to be eligible to submit a nomination, strict criteria must be met and becoming a finalist shows the firm/ person to exceed the criteria set out. http://www.fgba.co.uk/entry_criteria.htm With regard your comment on fees; it is common practice for business award nominations to have administration and process fees levied. The example highlighted above is approx £35. In the article there are 10 references available. Small companies do not have PR companies managing their profile, so extensive coverage proves more challenging. Examples of sites on wikipedia that have similar notability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto%27s_Pub_%26_Brewery Oyster007 (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To: Oni Ookami Alfador Thank you for your interest in this article. Regarding your comment 'User appears to be creating multiple accounts to circumvent the policy'. This is not the case at all. I had to create a new username to comply with Wikipedia policy and recommendations. This article is written in the spirit of Wikipedia. 213.208.100.177 (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To: Oni Ookami Alfador This is the core of the notice I received to create a new account! Just to reiterate, i have only created two accounts - not multiple. The initial one is no longer in use bescuase of the notice below that was sent to that account. I now use the second account username only. As a new user to Wikipedia, I thought this was the correct action to take. 'You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. Alternately, you may request a change in username if you want to keep the contributions from this account. In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is much easier to create a new account. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks Oyster007 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Null Physics[edit]
The result was Speedy Delete by User:Starblind CSD G3: Pure Vandalism (non-admin close). —Travistalk 19:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ktothef[edit]Vanity/vandal redirect dating from 2005. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Neologism, Not Verifiable. Entire article based on one source of questionable reliability. Pianoguy (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 10:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Indian Valley Public Library[edit]
No evidence of notability. Just another public library like thousands of others. Rtphokie (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Urobasican[edit]Constructed non-notable language, prod tag removed. Appears to be entirely fictional. Acroterion (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] Bookyards[edit]Spammish page for a website that doesn't meet WP:RS or WP:WEB, was going to prod it, but it was prod deleted before, Delete Secret account 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:07, January 17, 2008
Delete Unencyclopedic. No source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] CampaignCircus[edit]
Does not seem to be a notable web site, maybe also a hoax? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 00:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using campaigncircus.com since they launched, they have the a great collection of campaign ads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.35.108 (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — 217.132.35.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
|