The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a proper article for inclusion in an encyclopedia, being a news story about a competition for a flag for Dorset. The person who first submitted the article was promoting his design for a flag for Dorset and created a smokescreen of his intention by including an existing Dorset County Council flag and commentary about an historic figure in Dorset - St Wite. Until the competition is over and a design agreed, there is no need on Wikipedia for this blog.Dorsetpatriot (talk)
I see some of the comments disagreeing with me (here and on the discussion page) have widely missed the point. Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia and not a newsletter or blog. The article has been greatly toned down since its original entry but I still hold it has no value in this location. It is promotional of a single design in a competition to be the official flag of Dorset. The other counties mentioned in the discussions have passed the deliberation stage and can rightfully be included - they are now historical fact. This flag, firstly St Wite's flag then renamed the Dorset Cross is a matter of the creator's opinion. I will have no objection to an entry once the deliberations are over and a flag chosen. Otherwise, all flags entered to be the official flag should have their own entry in Wikipedia - clearly a nonsense. Mr White calls the banner of the arms of Dorset County Council an unofficial flag. This is misleading in his context. The banner exists and is recognised - as the banner of Dorset County Council. It is not anything other than that, but as it exists officially, it can be mentioned appropriately on Wikipedia. To make an analogy, where is the page on David Cameron, the Prime Minister?Dorsetpatriot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Wikipedia for informing me about this flag – having seen it flying I did wonder what it might be and a scan across the list of English flags enlightened me. I am now somewhat dismayed to find a move to delete this article. This strikes me as peculiar and ill-considered, such items do not get encyclopaedic reference elsewhere and this sort of account is precisely Wikipedia’s strength. Further research indicates to me that this flag is by far the leading contender in the current search for a county flag, it has received notable support both in the media and popularly but what is more, it is flying and is therefore a noteworthy event – removing this article would be an irresponsible action by this resource. I note that flags of many irredentist groups and pseudo-states feature in Wikipedia’s pages, they are there as a matter of record, they are in the public domain and appear in Wikipedia for people to refer to –this is exactly the same. The article does not state that this is the county flag but relates that it seeks to be – just as David Cameron seeks to be Prime Minister. When the other competition entries begin to fly I would expect to see them appear in these pages too but for the time being please do not excise information about the one that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexilo (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People coming to the page currently will be unaware of how the entry started off - as a promotional marketing exercise for the St Wite's flag (now renamed the Dorset Cross). Why I ask for deletion is that soon we may have a genuine flag of Dorset (and yes, it may even be this design) and that the Wikipedia entry could then be unbiased, factual and not-self-serving - as an encyclopedia entry should be. I used to put corrections into the page to show what the situation was - a competition running/ many entries/ non-selected - and I toned down the entry about the Chair of the County Council as it was impolite. However, each time, my edits were edited, leaving me to make a decision to nominate the page for deletion. It can return as mentioned, when it is appropriate.Dorsetpatriot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't need to back the statements up - following the links already in existence on the webpage to the newspaper forums, these comments can be found. If there is an audit trail from the original insertion to the current one, all my points can be proven by reading the pages in chronological order. Wikipedia does not exist for free marketing. In newspapers, items that look like news entries but are marketing have notices of "Advertisement Feature" so that the reader is not mislead. However, I may have been overzealous about the need for openness and factual reporting - it appears only 3 of us are looking at this entry. Dorsetpatriot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It took a long time to get here but for the first time, the page is what it should have been at the start. Provided there is no reversion to the earlier style, I remove my request for deletion. Dorsetpatriot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as crystal ball. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly as the status of the album can't even be confirmed, I believe this should be deleted as per WP:NOTCRYSTAL Nazgul533 talk contribs 23:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. There isn't a speedy deletion criterion for software. Corvus cornixtalk 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis of sounds heard by characters in various religious texts. Googling "Charismatic sound" produces mostly album reviews in which artists' sounds are described as charismatic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The technology is either a subset of Noise reduction or it is subset of Pattern recognition. Its name "Personalized Noise Reduction" should be more global (no "-ized") and should be completely rethought. It's less a technology about reducing noise and more about increasing desired signal focus. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, explicitly without prejudice to another article later on which either asserts significantly more notability, or is the results of major developments relating to the subject. Daniel (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably fails WP:BIO. Involved with two successful small companies, but should be merged into pages for those companies, if they are notable themselves. - Snouter
The result was keep. John254 16:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NN & spam, author has been spamming other articles with links to this rogerd (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable poker player with no achievments of note. Notability seems to be derived from being the wife of Prahlad Friedman. As such the article fails WP:BIO. – –Lid(Talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD has been announced to Wikiproject Poker
German.Knowitall (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting? There has certainly been a thorough discussion, and there obviously is no consensus, with opinions split in half. Close the discussion as no consensus. 2005 (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem especially notable. Lasted under 4 hours, with fairly minimal disruptions (no deaths, fires, lootings). At worst, planes were "backed up" for a little while. Made the local news for a day, as one might expect, but no lasting notability. (As WP:N says - "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability".) It hit 2.5 million people, true, but hey, South Florida's a densely populated place. Baghdad's an even bigger market, and the power's out there all the time, but we don't exactly see a glut of articles on power outages there. Biruitorul Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couple reasons for the nomination: 1. The article reads too much like an advert, even after some removal of advert-type content in the history. 2. Not sure that the company satisfies WP:N/WP:CORP. #1 ghit is company webpage, #2 is the article here, #3-5 are related to the company webpage, and the rest I can see appear to be more like passing references. In addition, article is completely orphaned. (If consensus is "keep", would suggest stubbing article back down to bare bones to remove advert content.) umrguy42 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. ¨victor falk 09:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This individual is not notable per WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS, he is not a celebrity, he just has a few videos on you tube, he is not even in the Top 10. No historical context. Transwiki to Wikinews maybe. Also serious WP:OWN issues as it seems he is editing this article about himself. The article is full of bias and original research also. It is way too long and filled with way too much trivia. I say delete this self promotional mess. Myheartinchile (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit too broad in coverage. Should we really list every film ever released that has featured talking animals/objects? The topic is unclear too. Do we list films on the basis of having a single anthropomorphic character, or only if they are the main characters? Enoktalk 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Films not yet in production don't meet WP:NFF or WP:NOT#CRYSTAL.
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the notable information in this article is already covered in Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat (which needs work itself). Merge and redirect. Jaysweet (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as insufficiently notable in its own right. I also note that the only incoming wikilink was for an unrelated game of the same name, suggesting a redirect is not the best course. Feel free to contact me if anyone decides to attempt a larger article where this content may be merged.--Kubigula (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable content. I can't see how there will be references to come for it either. Ged UK (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Merge possibilities can be discussed at the page. Wizardman 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC, unnotable song. Notability of the anime series it is used as an ending theme for is not inherited. Failed PROD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as a result of sources being found and added into the article. Wizardman 20:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Describes a prank website as if it were serious 08-15 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure this discussion has happened somewhere on here before. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman decided to keep the article 4 years ago due to 2 sources. Both sources have reliability issues for a few reasons. First, neither source refers to any actual owner of the site. They only a person named "Elmer" (although a WHOIS on the domain shows the owner...so again, not very reliable). Also, and both sources are very forward looking, written in 2008. However, their forward looking predictions never came true. There have not been any changes to pornfortheblind or any additional media sources contributing to the site's notability (usage/popularity/advancement) in the past 4 years. Since the sources are now 5 years old, one can see they are not reliable or accurate in their predictions. Porn for the blind is not registered as a non-profit organisation with the US government's official database. The site has not changed its copyright date or content since 2009. It is a dead hoax site (see above comments in the blue box by other users) that is not notable for any reason, but it has amazingly survived wikipedia deletion for many years. I think it is time for it to go (Hoax, not notable, and unreliable sources). Angelatomato (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google scholar gives three hits from the group that introduced the term (one of whom it appears wrote the article) and little evidence that the concept has received coverage elsewhere. A general Google search also does not indicate any widespread use of the term. I do not think that the concept (however valid) has received the kind of independent coverage from reliable secondary sources required to write a neutral encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep per WP:ATHLETE which establishes notability. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer. Anarxia (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is merely disambiguation page full of redlinks. None of the redlinked persons appear to pass WP:BIO, and the page seems to serve no other purpose than to house a few inline external links. The first two on the list were both articles at one point, but were both deleted per separate AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Willis (personal trainer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Willis (broadcaster)) with the former being redeleted post rem under CSD A7. The only redlinks in the list which aren't orphaned are Steve Willis (personal trainer) (mostly from articles related to The Biggest Loser) and Steve Willis (comix artist) (one link from List of minicomics creators). Delete on nine counts of non-notability. haz (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this software package is notable; no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by PeterSymonds, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Software package, no indication of notability, no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WP:NOT#DIR. An overarching article might be possible, but these articles are just directory listings of shows. Black Kite 16:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not notable. This is merely a listing of appearances by a band in Europe in 2003, put under an arbitrary name. I wouldn't say the same about Sick of the Studio '07 for example. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they have similar problems (ie arbitrary names; notability):
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Return of the Living Dead (film series). If there's actually anything encyclopedic to be merged there, then it can be. Black Kite 16:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about supporting character from a horror film. This character does not warrant a separate article. Doczilla STOMP! 16:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV. I understand and appreciate where people are coming from on the 'Yes' vote, but feel that they will only get the unanimity necessary in a wiki environment if they rephrase the issue in those terms. Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. (Though perhaps only as a stub, of course, since it's very complicated and not many people would know how to express it clearly in layperson's terms). - Jimbo Wales
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canada_Roads/Golden_Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-notable software. ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company, spammy article. ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are several third party source, and I am in the process of adding more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idegtev (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the largest free (open-source) clinical trials software available. To clinical researchers it is certainly notable. I need time to edit it to conform to guidelines. It has already been accused of not being notable by someone who didn't read it, but after he did he decided that it was and kept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idegtev (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The deleters argued that the page had insufficient reliable sources and pointed out the lack of real world context. The keepers countered with the assertion that sources were available, and will be added given time, and also argued that as a compilation page it was a good way to organise material that, individually, would not justify an article. Overall, I see a balance of arguments and there was no consensus. However, the flaws highlighted by the deleters do need fixing and, if the article is not improved in a reasonable time, say 3 months, then no objection could be taken to a further listing. TerriersFan (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, since there are no reliable sources that can assert the notability of this article that are independent of the subject itself. Randomran (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can those people !voting keep provide some suggestions as to where to find sourcing for this information? Corvus cornixtalk 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted under criterion G4 by User:Fvasconcellos. Non admin close. Guest9999 (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unashamed neologism, unused by any sources of note whatsoever. Nandesuka (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Triwbe (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an essay full of WP:OR and fails on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. WP:SYN is probably an issue. Triwbe (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your helpful comments and suggestions. A reworking of the entry is currently in progress to be less essay-like or textbook in format and more consistent with encyclopedic entries. Anabridges (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, arguably a group with no assertion of notability, WP:NFT ("Squazzle™ is a drinking game first invented in Tim Thorpe's bedroom"), WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Drinking game made up in March by some kids with nothing better to do. As if contesting the PROD wasn't enough they also decided to call me a c*nt on my user page. Nice. Delete. Roleplayer (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nom after relisting with many thanks to those who commented and further clarified editor consensus on this article, which falls under WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this topic is meaningful to Wikipedia's history it is not notable in the wider world and does not meet the proposed guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Most of the notability stemmed from a single series of edits this individual made to Wikipedia to further an impersonation scheme over which no subsequent criminal conviction is noted in the article. Moreover, the article notes only one earlier criminal conviction, for a wholly un-notable and single crime. Biography of living person policy is meaningful here because here both because of the undue weight brought to bear by his Wikipedia edits along with the BLP warning: Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly (to put it more pithily, the "gotchya" side to this article is a bit glaring, even if this happened in good faith). Given this, the Wikipedia community might ponder the conflict of interest worries this article raises for Wikipedia, given the self-referential aspect at its root. Lastly, most of the independent coverage was limited to stories stemming from a short string of AP reports, which are more often than not cited by the other sources and I also find it a bit odd (and perhaps telling) that one of the references cited for this article is a Wikipedia project page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to assert notability under WP:CREATIVE. One novel (which turns out to be vanity-published [12] [13]); personal website has been down since 2007; and I can find no third-party sources supporting the claims that she's a "well-known" author or that the book had "critical acclaim". Appears to be a vanity creation anyway: compare creator name Alexstott (talk · contribs) and staff list of AA1 Media, Amesbury. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was that this AfD was overtaken by events. Consensus was to delete the huge list of schools, but the article has in the interim been completely rewritten and should now be properly called List of lists of schools in the United States. It would take another AfD (not that I would recommend starting one) to determine whether there is consensus to delete this new article. Sandstein 17:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a category, not an article. Jaysweet (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article asserts mild notability but completely unsourced. Ghits don't throw up any reliable sources, just on-line retailers and forum postings. Happy to withdraw if RS can be found to substantiate notability. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely unsourced article about what appears to me an extremely minor subgenre. neon white talk 16:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible (probable) hoax; at the very least, delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Note: this author has created a number of album, song pages for the artist Ladies Man(Singer), most of which are already up for AfD. Wolfer68 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally nominated for CSDa7. While I don't feel that it proves notability, there is enough doubt in my mind that I wasn't comfortable deleting it. However, I feel an Afd is warranted as that there are significant problems with the article, notably WP:COI, WP:N and WP:CORP. Trusilver 15:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod; a protologism with no references or sources to demonstrate notability or, indeed, any usage other than that of the article's creator. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Of course, anyone is free to redirect to Bakery. I'll also provide the deleted content for a merge upon request. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A dictionary definition at best of a commonplace phrase AndrewHowse (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Evolution Lofts are two condo towers that could be located in Downtown Las Vegas. They are considered a stale proposal. If built..." These buildings are nonexistent, unlikely to be built, and therefore not deserving of a separate article. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would most likely tag this for SD, but I am unsure. Not every little magazine editor has a Wikipedia Page! Do they? StewieGriffin! • Talk 15:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete G11 blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously speedied as a hoax. Nate1481(t/c) 14:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every source I can find seems to have been written by the same person. Gr1st (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Content problems should be addressed by improving the article. Sandstein 23:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys...I have had people try to write crazy things, and if it is suitable...please help me to learn how to prevent this, or to remedy.....I or a staff member can always clean grammar and language..but whenever I or staff sees weird or false info, we have to respond...Thank you for your time, and I hope that I will not have to check this entry every day as I have in the past 2 weeks to counter the vandals...Thank you so much for helping me....Liz wilde/Annie
Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BIO - even after all the work the subject herself has done on the article, only a small number of references to secondary sources are provided and those are each very short, the latest 7 years old to when she went to work for NBG Radio Network which went bust 2 years later. Doug Weller (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. May be restored for selective merging. Sandstein 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A dozen cases over two months and no deaths. Made the local news, and attracted the CDC's attention (it is their job to look after such things), but not really notable in a lasting way. Biruitorul Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dlohcierekim 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Article needs lots of work, but consensus is that the sources are sufficient evidence of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable former pirate station, vanity Rapido (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable local pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable local pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as copyvio of http://www.board-crazy.co.uk/skateboarding-sponsorship.php. --MCB (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited opinion piece, essay and original research. Blowdart | talk 14:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine
have it deleted
see if I care
I just wanted to make the information more accessible to others and what better way than to Wikipedia it
I mean it's not an important aspect of skateboarding, I mean, I should know seeing as I am a Skateboarder and sponsorship is not what I skate for - it's just that I get asked alot about the subject at hand. People ask me about alot of things and usually just refer them to wikipedia
and because I've been asked about this alot I decided to create this article.
PS this is the first time i have done anything on wikipedia except for viewing content so cut us some slack and make suggestions as to how the information should be presented because I've never done this before...it's a learning curve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought that there should be an article on skateboard sponsorships in the wikipedia database —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
either communicate with me so i can actually understand what up or otherwise change the article so it fits your criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if your just out to make me look stupid then your doing a great job, I must say, well done, no,no,you've really outdone yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well i guess i'm just that incompetent huh? how bout i give you a game of skate for it - i win and the article stays, you win and you can toss it.
if you don't know what a "game of skate" is then you should wikipedia it, thats what i tell everyone else to do - but only because i know that it's there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internal Terrorist (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do some research and make the necessary changes - show me how it's done--Internal Terrorist (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable pirate station from long ago Rapido (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No prejudice to recreation if someone can find such coverage on paper or elsewhere. Davewild (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very non-notable pirate; 10 Google hits! Rapido (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphim♥Whipp 15:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable local pirate station, vanity Rapido (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by PeaceNT, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax. Unreferenced. A Google search for "Peter Adamopoulos" Panathinaikos produces zero hits. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod (no explanation). Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. Article can easily be restored if/when he does. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Spellcast (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax. Unreferenced. A Google search for Damjan Krajcic provides only one relevant link - a Bebo profile for the subject of the article. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable local pirate station, vanity Rapido (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a hoax. Spellcast (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax. Sourceless article. No relevant hits for Googling "Andrew Garcia" "real madrid". ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Article was rewritten by me as a page on the Rachel Proctor album. Consensus is that non-charting songs are usually not notable, and I have provided a hatnote pointing to the Beach Boys album that contains their "Where I Belong". Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song, didn't chart, didn't receive any awards. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, owing to no consensus, although this leaned slightly towards delete. Further discussion of a redirect on the article's talk page might help hone consensus.. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NN replacement actress in a Broadway musical — MusicMaker5376 13:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep but please clean up using suggestions below or elsewhere. Content is clearly needed, just not arranged as it is. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of un-notable minutae about a channel programming strand. As the tag states, reads like a fansite and it's doubtful if any of the content here could be incorporated into any other articles without it being of minor note. treelo talk 13:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as advertisement for non-notable technology. Sandstein 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement Crowsnest (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film. No significant coverage in independent 3rd party sources. Fails WP:MOVIE (as the only non-blog external link which goes into detail about it is a press release and I don't believe this counts as a "major" award) and has only 64 ghits in English, 84 ghits in Arabic. Was originally created by the director himself (Hishamzr (talk · contribs), who also created an article on himself and added himself to the list of notable people on ((Arab citizens of Israel))) before being speedied, then re-created by a possible sockpuppet (see here). In response to the claims that I only want the article deleted because I'm Jewish and politically biased, (a) I'm not Jewish, and (b) I'm usually accused of being pro-Palestinian. Make of that what you will. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:56, 5 June 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)) . |
http://www.badil.org/awda-award/award5.html http://www.badil.org/Publications/Press/2008/press465-08.htm
http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/99FDA844-B3BE-4AE9-894D-4FFDB9CF5EE6.htm
JFCK (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia will not publicize the documentary; it just gives information about it as it gives information about other Israeli films and documentaries that no one heard about or received any awards. Anyway TV stations will not search for films in Wikipedia, neither people interested in the films. Their source will be imdb or all movies. So you have no excuses now пﮟოьεԻ 57.
With respect M.jish (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep owing to no consensus, with a slight tilt towards deletion. Note, some comments asking for both delete and merge were contradictory. Strongly suggest running this AfD again, clearly reminding editors to ask for only one of the following: merge, keep, delete or redirect. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pointless and offers extraneous information that a user needn't know. It is sloppily written and presented, and to date, has only been edited by one user alone, offering fanatic and sometimes subjective content in the article Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. It was composed by two notable acts, and it was recorded by two notable acts, but that doesn't make it notable on its own -- there are no sources pertaining to the song, and it wasn't a single or anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Software of dubious notability. Psychonaut (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Unsourced, in-universe "biography" of a fictional character with no real world relevance. Fails WP:FICT, WP:V and WP:RS. Serves no discernible purpose that could not be served by NCIS (TV series). McWomble (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Directory of non-notable markets (see also WP:NOT#DIR) Ratarsed (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (A7 - band that fails to assert notability) by Orangemike.. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable band, removed prod Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Triwbe (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look on Google and, as stated Cheadle Bleachworks has now been demolished and replaced with housing. Does this constitute CSD A7? »xytram« talk 09:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per this policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bit Lordy (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's a tough one because others (Twentysomething (term) and Thirtysomething (term)) have been created with no issues. But I agree with Bit Lordy this isn't a dictionary. »xytram« talk 09:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the other articles, this one doesn't have the same context and relevance, and as stated above, this ain't a dictionary. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; that is what Wikitionary is for. Happyme22 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have said WP:NEO, rather than WP:DICT. I can't find any evidence of use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod (by IP, no explanation). Non-notable football club playing in a barely notable league, no independent third-party sources. The level of detail the article has suggests it's been written by somone connected with the club. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was removed so I'm bringing this here. I can't find any source that would back up the information in this article other than their myspace page. Don't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Shell babelfish 08:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GET SOME FRIENDS!!!!!!
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's claimed that he's a notable author, a notable actor, a notable musician, a notable songwriter, a notable illustrator. Yet the entire history of the GoogleNews archive throws up absolutely nothing of note. [24] Instead, the facts are that as an author he fails WP:BK, as an actor he fails WP:ENTERTAINER, and as a musician and songwriter he fails WP:MUSIC. This is a WP:single-purpose account that, so far, has expressed no interest in contributing anything to Wikipedia apart from Mr. Herbertson's biography, Mr. Herbertson's non-notable fantasy novel, and an anthology that Mr. Herbertson once appeared in, and then peppering other articles with spamlinks to Mr. Herbertson and all of his doings. [25] Qworty (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, this was not my intention. I am Mr Herbertson's wife and sometimes do his promotional work. I didn't think this was promotional though.
I am German and although I am more or less fluent I didn't read all the criteria. I was more concerned with trying to make the article function. I see now the mistake - this notability part. (and conflict of interest) I also wasn't peppering, just trying to respond to the need for references.
Google says this if you google 'herbertson' and 'emerald city':
.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Herbertson - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
Emerald City - #108 For those who like such things, there are photos on the Emerald City web site. ...... like Craig Herbertson, whose brilliant first novel she is publishing, ... www.emcit.com/emcit108.shtml - 195k - Cached - Similar pages
Emerald City - #108 Oh, and welcome to Emerald City, I hope you enjoy it. This issue sees a guest article from multiple Hugo-winning fan writer and Worldcon chair, Mike Glyer. ... www.emcit.com/emcpr108.shtml - 175k - Cached - Similar pages
But I now appreciate that isn't notable enough because it is not multiple. And I think that these critics of the music would probably not be either. I can delete all the articles and references if you want. Sorry! Silkekingofthedirigibles (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CD-Rezension: LORD OF WHISKY Scots' folk at its best kann man da nur sagen!
www.cd-kritik.de, 06.07
CD-Rezension: LORD OF WHISKY Eine mitreißende Folk-CD!
MUSIKER Magazin, 03.06
CD-Rezension: LORD OF WHISKY ... gut gemachte schottische Musik, die nicht zwangsmodernisiert wurde ... Ohrwurmqualität ...
Folker! – Das Magazin für Folk, Lied und Weltmusik, 04.06
CD-Rezension: HEARTS OF GLORY Für Schottland-Fans empfehlenswert, für Hearts-Fans ein absolutes Muss ...
Folker! – Das Magazin für Folk, Lied und Weltmusik, 03.05
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable fantasy novel [26] out from a micro-press and utterly failing WP:BK. A WP:single-purpose account has been busy spamming it and the author around the encyclopedia [27]. Reverting all of this promotional damage will be a large task. Qworty (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the authors wife so there is a conflict of interest. Just realised it now - I'm German so my English is not quite fluent and theres a lot of stuff here. I got most of the material from my husbands records and promo: The Emerald City quote is here below:
But looking carefully at notability it is only one source so you might as well delete it.
Emerald City Issue 108 August 2004
interview with Mike Glyer
'MICHAEL: POD is in its infancy. It’s something we would not consider doing at this point in time, because the loss of print quality and production control is so great. At the moment, it’s not the way we would bring out a writer’s work, although I applaud Storm Constantine’s experimenting with the medium and appreciate that writers like Craig Herbertson, whose brilliant first novel she is publishing, and Adam Daly, another quirky and eccentric writer, would not otherwise get out. Which is not to say that we will never produce books in this way, because when the technology improves, as it will, we obviously would do.
Delete no NPOV, little notability, also odd that it says he's divorced, yet the above poster is his wife? Shoombooly (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Shoombooly made this comment when deleting my article 'Craig Herbertson' about my husband. So everybody can put this into the grave with some dignity can I point out my husbands first wife is English and I am his second wife and I am German so its not as odd as you think. Again sorry for the trouble Silkekingofthedirigibles (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crufty / promotional bio of a music journalist. Zero sourcing. Deiz talk 07:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions mostly consist of statements such as "one of the most important charts", "see WP:COMMONSENSE", "...doesn't mean it's not official" and "one of the best-known worldwide charts". Statements of this sort do not address the important issues of policy raised in this discussion, such as the article's WP:V problems. Sandstein 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No independent reliable sources proves its notability. Also it was deleted in French Wikipedia AfD: fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/United World Chart and it's under AfD in German Wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3. Juni 2008#United_World_Chart (United World Chart seems to be produced by a German company). Tosqueira (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, local youth theatre group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable (indeed utterly obscure) theater group, of which there are hundreds of thousands throughout the world. Woefully fails WP:ORG. Qworty (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to Delete defaulting to keep. Very wide disagreement on the value of this list. There is strong support for a move to another title if it was kept such as the List of persons considered a founder in a field suggested here and would hope that some such change can be agreed as an editorial decision. Davewild (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At first I thought from the article title it was a bad joke, but I suppose I can see it being substantially narrowed down (list of founders of fields, schools of thought, whatever). As it currently stands it seems to violate the indiscriminate collection of information concept in opening itself to just about anything. Even the current list has Sir Isaac Newton alongside the creator of Dungeons & Dragons (no offense) and the things they fathered/mothered range from "African Neo-Renaissance" (it doesn't have an article, whatever it is) to "Pokemon", from "gynaecology" to "international folk dance in the United States(?)". Jibbajabba (talk)
Based upon the refutations above, I urge to rename and keep this article ¨¨ victor falk 08:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11. --jonny-mt 05:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advert for non-notable student magazine. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this person meets the WP:BIO notability standard as an author, as an actor, or as both combined. Nadda in Google News brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely aggressive WP:COI wikispammer and WP:single-purpose account whose sole function, so far, has been to violate WP:SPAM by adding promotional links to various articles [35], and to keep creating this same article about Pariah Burke, which has already been deleted previously by other editors on a PROD[36]. The entire historical archive of GoogleNews demonstrates a complete failure of WP:N [37], and while his books do exist, they are little more than tech manuals, and fully fail the notability standards of WP:BK. True, he has given quotes in passing to a few tech publications over the years, but none of these constitutes a source that can be used to meet WP:BIO, since none of the articles is about him; they only contain brief quotes from him. Finally, username indicates WP:AUTO, for which he's been warned, along with WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I fully understand your caution and suspicion, it is not my intent to use Wikipedia for spam or self promotion. The original Pariah Burke article was created by a third party; I don't recall by whom and cannot access the history of the original article. I later edited it to correct some outdated and erroneous information. The other day I came to the entry to update its bibliography section to include my latest book only to find the entry deleted. I restored the article, using as a template and guide current Wikipedia entries for my peers David Blatner and Ted Alspach.
If you examine the article you should note that it is clearly not for the purposes of self-promotion. Were that the case the article would be much longer and would include promotional copy about and links to my various books, the six for-profit websites I produce and/or edit, the software products I have produced or in which I have an interest, the several businesses in which I have interests, and so forth. In fact, there isn't even a link to my main website, iampariah.com. I didn't include it or any of the other information simply because there was not, in my opinion, any informative value to including such in the article.
The information I did include is relevant to those who might like to find out more information about this particular American techonology author--just as readers might like to find out about any of the other authors listed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_technology_writers.
Further, I did not realize that my username violates any policies. I have never received any warning about that as Qworty states. How would such a warning have been delivered?
I've contributed over the years a little here and there to Wikipedia--mostly grammatical corrections--and extensively to other niche wikis at Wikia.com (see here for an example of my contributions), all using the same online name, which I also use for IMs, Usenet, and forums as well. I honestly did not think there was issue with my username, but would be happy to change it if the community or policy requires it.
Pariah S. Burke (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Band that doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC notability standard. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find much about this except that it exists. If anyone can turn up something significant, then it's fine by me. Paxsimius (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone. Can you elaborate a bit on the potential problem with this article and/or the sources used? I don't know what you mean when you say they read like press releases? I tried to keep this article as clean as I can by just summarizing what it does and the news pieces that talk about it. Squitringo1234 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advert for a type of loan offered by one (only one) Canadian company, with links to the company and it's subsidiary. No assertion of notability and no secondary sources. JohnnyMrNinja 03:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 20:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Microstub, no information, no references. Creator is a banned sockpuppet. Garyseven (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lots of heat and little light. If this was an "normal" independent film, released a week ago and with a little interest on blogs and forums, sourced by a forum and one news story, then it would be deleted without a second thought. I don't see why this is any different. No prejudice to recreation should it actually become notable. Black Kite 16:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable machinima production released only a week ago, with the only source being forums. Apparently it is "extremely popular" because the forum thread has had "hundreds of replies". Also, being linked to by the developers is not an indication of notability. Non-trivial coverage by independent, reliable, third-party sources is. Drat (Talk) 03:10, 5 June 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)) . |
This is a ground breaking movie/production/machinima, what ever you want to call it. This type of thing has never been done before in eve, i mean, that in itself has got to warrant this atical being kept.
This is a fantastic piece of work put together through literally YEARS of work and has had a huge impact on the world of EvE, over a thousand posts on the eve-online forums, with over eighty five thousand views of the posts! 20000 downloads at just one mirror, and there are a total of 9 mirrors, not to mention all the torrent files that exist.
I thought wikipedia was supposed to inform and add to society? Well, to be honest, i don't see how deleting such an ..dare i say it.. EPIC movie that has obivously brought hundreds and thousands of people together..well, how exactly can you jusitfy deleting this artical when so many people have enjoyed it so much and, now this it a major case in my arguement to keep this artical, so i'll put it in bold, even the game developers have taken the time out to post their amazment and approval (see bottom of post)
There is no doudt in my mind that this movie deserves a wikipedia artical.
Ok, to counter the posts for deletion:
"Seidenstud" - "Wow. I looked at the movie a bit, and it looks pretty impressive. If it catches on outside of the world of machinima forums, it probably could get enough non-trivial coverage to warrant a wikipedia article! But until then...."
You just need to read the statistics i have included in this talk page/reply, and feel free to go and check them for yourself: The forum sub section: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=channel&channelID=29045 The post itself: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=783871
"Drat" - "The number of members in the game's community is not an argument for keeping this. By that logic, we'd have to make articles for every piece of World of Warcraft machinima ever made because it has 10 million players. You need to show that the film has recieved non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Forums and 99.999% of blogs are not reliable."
Well, to start off with, how can you call over a thousand posts not reliable??? i'm sorry but what you have posted here is, and to put it frank, utter rubbish in relation to this post. Fair enough, it just would not be justifiable for wiki to have an artical about every movie created, but ....over a thousand posts!.. i would be very very suprised if even a few of the movies in that big list of "machinima" ever got over a thousand posts combined within the first week of unvieling it to the public.
As for multiple sources, clear skies is featured on: Eve Online forums: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=783871 and, while this might not be completely independant, the developers went out of their way to even put the movie in the game's news: http://myeve.eve-online.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=2067&tid=7 <- I have never seen that before
The Half Life 2 forums: http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=143190 The creator has been interviewed: http://www.virginworlds.com/podcast.php?show=9&ep=38 LivePvP.com, with several posts telling of it's awsomeness: http://www.livepvp.com/watch/eve-online/clear-skies/ rockpapershotgun.com: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=1846
and i could go on and on, hell, it's even on the machinima forums: http://www.machinima.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=55702&sid=c2f355ee60afc851183a18beccbac37c
"Drat" - "It's artistic quality needs to have been covered by reliable, etc, etc. sources as I have said above. Your personal analysis is not sufficient (See WP:NOR). As for multiple engines, other machinima productions released years ago have done this"
Again, i disagree sir =]. As i have sead before, this kind of thing has never been seen in the eve universe before. This my friend is originality, applying an idea to a completely new spectrum, that spectrum being eve. As for the "Your personal analysis is not sufficient" remark, doesn't that make what you have just said, and by your own words "not sufficient" or irrelovent, finally on this point, the "personal analysis" of others is exactly what makes this website so efficent, so versatile, so great. So please get down of that high horse of yours. Ok, so that artical you linked opens with the following: "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." I fail to see how any of this relates to this movie as it is not a "fact, argument, speculation, or an idea". It is simply a movie and by no means does it "serve to advance a position", thus making this artical irrelavent to your arguement. Please read any third party sources you post in to try and back you up in future, I'm sorry for being harsh mate, but thats how it is.
I also completely agree with "CraziFuzzy" here, his/her(sorry couldn't tell by the name =P) posts:
"The most notable aspect of this machinima is not necessarily based on the numbers of praising forum posts, but in its artistic quality, and most notably, the pioneering method of integrating multiple game engines. I can think of no other Machinima which does this, especially not to this amazing effect. This fact alone warrants the wiki"
"To what standard do you then use to judge artistic quality? I fail to see how you can determine who's opinion would be considered more 'reliable' than the movie's target audience"
Finally,
"Drat" - "The opinions of critics who are well known, writing for publications with a reputation for fact checking and peer review. The opinions of random people on a forum count for nothing, as forums are not reliable sources. If you check the references section for Red vs. Blue you will see many references from reliable publications" 1. and i'm sorry to keep bringing this up but, over a thousand peoples views and opinions count for nothing? What planet are you on? Sure, MAYBE if it was 10, even 20 people and it stopped there, but this is way to many people to just disgard without a thought when they are all saying the same thing, that this movie was simply epic. I can not think of a better or bigger word that puts it so finely. 2. As for the references, this movie, or now more accuratly "Episode 1" has not had time to gain those awards or credentials. Plus, i think it is extremely unfair to be comparing something that is only just over a week old to something that has been up and running for years, no matter how great either of them are. 3. I have to be asking you this, but just exactly who do you think you are to be the judge of whose opinion is or isn't relivant, that they "count for nothing"? Your opinion is just as relevant as those "random people on a forum", i jsut can't seem to find the words to describe my annoence, putting it lightly, to how you seem to see yourself as better than other people, as more significant, as your opinions being more meaningful than others. ...ok ok, rant over
Drat, i respect you and the fact you are a very senior member of the wiki online community can only add to my respect, but comments such as "The opinions of random people on a forum count for nothing" almost destroy that respect. Wikipedia is a public Exyclopidia for the sharing of knowledge. "random people" come on this forum everyday and add to that knowledge, how can you say their opinions count for nothing.
Please take a deep breath before you reply and don't try and dismiss peoples opinions as trivial next time.
Conculsion
I am going to have to quote "CraziFuzzy" here, as he i think has put it perfectly:
"The most notable aspect of this machinima is not necessarily based on the numbers of praising forum posts, but in its artistic quality, and most notably, the pioneering method of integrating multiple game engines. I can think of no other Machinima which does this, especially not to this amazing effect. This fact alone warrants the wiki"
plus, it must be pretty epic to spur me on to write this chunk of text =P
Developers posts: CCP Dionysus: "very very nice.. awesome" CCP Casqade: "Wow. This is exactly what I wanted.
Movies with story is always better than the regular flashy effects coordinated with music. I have been longing for something like this so long. Thank you so very much!
Great work! I want to buy you beer at Fanfest." ISD Deckard Bishop: "Amazing movie!
We want more! I think I speak for everyone when I say we need another episode! I'm sure you can cope without sleep for another year or two!!!" CCP Hastur: "oooh Very nice" CCP Whisper: "This is making the rounds of the office at the moment...everyone who's seen it has been blown away while laughing their heads off. Very well done sir, very well done. Very Happy
...now if you excuse me, I am off to prepare a pre-recorded message begging for help." CCP Oneiromancer: "Pure awesomeness!
Now I need to steal a hat to tip it to you. Possibily several hundred hats.
I can only hope that we will get to see some more of your and your team's amazing work in the future and if you come to the FanFest this year the entire QA department will drown you in beer and cookies." CCP Hunter.: "L O V E D I T ! ! ! !" CCP Whisper: "Actually if you go by the backstory there are numerous ships still piloted the "traditional" way as illustrated in this movie. Pod pilots are the elite of the EVE universe and better able to control their ships, but I would assume that at any given point and time there are more ships being flown the normal way than through pod technology. But that's me descending into deep RP again which leads to me wanting to have more NPC traffic actually warping in and out rather than just appearing in space like god's own film splice special effect.
Couple of us were talking about this movie in the pub this evening...every one of us already has a favourite line from this video. It got quoted and laughed about a lot, so again: Job well done." CCP Greyscale (a very senior/important dev member): "I laughed so hard my top wingy bit fell off.
You sir are a god among men and I salute you.
o7"
CCP Navigator: "John Rourke,
Please take a bow and bask in the glory of being an EVE Online God.
That video was nothing short of brilliant.
o7"
and many many more, i will take the time tomorrow to post them you for you.
i'm sorry, but no matter how much you argue, but THESE people you cannot ignore of say that they are "random people" and "their opinion counts for nothing" , they make the game!!!
Electricalplug (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The views and opinions expressed here are by no means those of of the "Clear Skies" production team or those of the eve online comminity, including developers. They are the sole opinions of a fan wanting to see a great peace of work duely recognised 86.13.148.14 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Review on Rock Paper Shotgun -> http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=1846
Eve Online news piece (including this as it technically is indepentant as Ian isn't a member of the CCP or white wolf team) -> http://myeve.eve-online.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=2067&tid=7
As mentioned about Massivley's Review of the movie -> http://www.massively.com/2008/06/09/eve-online-meets-half-life-2-in-machinima-masterpiece/
Warp Drive active podcast where Ian is interviewed on the making of this project -> http://www.virginworlds.com/podcast.php?show=9&ep=38
Another podcast "Drone Bay", completely seperate from Warp drive active and features none of the same people, gives clear skies a thumbs up and advises all to watch it -> http://www.virginworlds.com/podcast.php?show=17&ep=12
Ok, as for the link to Red vs Blue's Referance's section, i'm going to same again that comparing a show that has been up for years now and has hundreds of episodes to a series that is barely out of the wrapper it extremely unfair.
Also, a lot of those links point inwards to wikipedia articals and some are pointing to the same location. I've even come across a few that doesn't exist at all.
Now, after reading the links that Seidenstud posted up, i believe that a "reliable source" is one to be held in high esteem of those within the community it was created for and by some others outside that community. They give credit were credit is due and are generally very perticular about where there information comes from.
Ok, so assuming that i got this right, blogs such as the podcasts "The Drone Bay" and "Warp Drive active" and blogs such as "CrazyKinux's Musing" could, and should be included as reliable, not as "a forum post, random blog or trivial"
In relation to "Wikipedia:No original research", i still don't really understand how this apply's to "Clear Skies". As you said Drat, this concept of film making has happened before, and you corretly pointed to Red vs Blue, so this makes the "no original research" point invalide, espicially if a cross platform film has been producted before as you said Drat, and on this topic, are there any examples of these on wikipedia or floating around on the web that i can have a look at? Well, even if these cross platforms productions don't exist it still doesn't mean that this artical apply's the "Clear Skies" as the idea for it was born on the fact that machinima exists. Infact, how i see it, the adds another "reliable source" to the list as "Clear Skies" was born from the idea of machinima, all it is is just a different, and better in my opinion, branch to what most producers follow when creating a machinima production. This could even be the startings of a whole new type of machinima with it's Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources being the origanal machinima productions that have now been surpassed in terms of quality and context by this new thinking on an old idea
Finally in relation to "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" Section two (Pointing at policy [40]) says that to form a valide arguement for deletion, specific policy must be breached, and the only policy breach i can see that has been directed and apperently brocken by the "Clear Skies" Wiki page is the Verifiability policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V).
There are other policy breaches in this discusion i know, but they ahve been directed at me, not the "Clear Skies" page =P.
Anyway, havn't both Ian and myself both proved that policy to not apply to clear skies? Espicially as Ian is the creator of this movie, that should surely blow the Verifiability issue right out of the water surely?
If i am mistaken, or if you see any of the points above as invalide please don't hessitate to point it out, also explinations on anything i might have gotten myself confused over would be very must appriciated.
Also, i've had a look and as of yet, i can't find any true, and distinct cross platform productions to the scale and context of clear skies
Thanks for reading again
Liam
Electricalplug (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info can be found at:
http://www.quantcast.com/myeve.eve-online.com
http://www.quantcast.com/www.eve-online.com
I would go on to say "that assuming that this download trend of an average of 8810 downloads per mirror for the 3 mirrors that listed the amount of downloads, one could assume then that the estimated total downloads for this film thus far is 8810x12 = 105720 Downloads in total", but i'm now sure that this is inline with wikipedia policy as it is purely hypothetical (bonus points for the big words lol =P) and will delete this segment if needed as i am still only getting to know all of the rules and regulations that makes wikipedia such a great and reliable source of information.
Also, since Drat posted yesterday the numbers on googling '"clear skies" machinima':
""clear skies" machinima gets 633 hits, with 154 unique"
The number of hits has gone up to 2,620, thats a 313.9% increase in just one day, very notable (math -> [[2,620-633]/633]x100).Sorry, don't know how to get the amount of unique hits, is someone could put up the numbers that'd be great.
Electricalplug (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it does not matter what "arguments" are presented: this is one of the clearest instances ever where the Wikicabal will take the decision, not the Wikiusers. The facts that the subject of the article is relatively new, that the medium is radically different from "mainstream", that the subject of the film and its setting (an MMORPG; set in a science-fictional milieu) are esoteric bordering on fancruftish, and that there is no deep background to any of these, means that critical review is naturally going to be sparce, and that notability will be a variable constant accoridng to, for example, location (say London/Rejkavik versus "'in the deserts of Sudan or the gardens of Japan'"). In a year's time, we will know whether or not this is Wiki-worthy. Therefore, being bold, and breaching all process, I suggest we "delete and salt" for 1 year (i.e. no revival), but that this version be archived in a safe place. In 12 months, the archived version can be recreated and up-dated, and a further AfD held to decide whether or not the effort was worth it. But, folks, my thoughts don't matter :: only the Cabal will decide. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The article cites no sources independent of the subject that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability, no directly referenced sources. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bduke (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article consists of places that are nonnotable. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe#Issues to consider for the rationale. Johnny Au (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also read the message you left for Ilovevancouver90909, I figure all the problem here is "history". Do you really think young roads do not deserve articles? Why would it be so? History... everyday, a new page of history is created. Let's just say, this road is considered as a rapid developing road, and it is expanding (no matter in traffic, or length). This road will become one of the major artery in Markham. It is planned to encomprise many communities. How about looking at it as an proposed road? Proposed roads do not have histories. Same with Bur Oak, which is proposed from Highway 7 down towards Ninth Line. If what you say is true, then I don't think proposed roads deserve articles as well. The Canadian Roadgeek (Road talk) at 00:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can find nothing about this road that is notable, nothing at all, except for the number of people who have added to the page over the course of two years. If several people care so much about this road, why not leave it up? People in Singapore won't be required to read it. Elan26 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
The result was Redirected and merged existing content into WNYB; non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notabity for this tiny UHF TV station in a minor market is not confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for this organization cannot be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, or more accurately try again. This AfD is a clear example of one that should have been broken up with each model nominated individually, as some are clearly more notable then others. No objection to a speedy re-nom on those where consensus appeared to be delete. Wizardman 22:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails BIO1E. She is an also-ran on a television game show, notable only in that context. The fact that a print model gets work as a print model is not notable. We have articles for the winner, runner-up and 3rd place contestants from ANTM. The others are not noteworthy, apart from their appearance on ANTM, and have yet to establish themselves as leaders in their chosen profession. Consequently, I am nominating all but the top 3 finishers from the ANTM cycles for deletion. In time they may prove notable enough for an article in the encyclopedia but until then they are quite well represented at all the various ANTM articles and the ANTM dedicated wiki. L0b0t (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to renominate separately. The individuals are not of the same notability. But here goes:
By the way, if every runner-up deserves his own page, why was Nik Pace's deleted? As for the models's achievement you can see their picture galleries here: http://all-antm.net/index.php . Markley (Cosmo, Cover Magazine, 2 Style Covers, face of Free People Wear), D'Amato (face of Daftbird clothing, Lip service clothing and Clementine clothing + several magazine spreads by Amanda Brooks) and Strauss (face of Hitch Couture) all have over 100 pictures of printwork. And to answer Ohconfucius, Kim Stolz has hosted the MTV movie awards, is an MTV VJ, covered the Fiercees for MTV and has had several covers (Knit, Go NYC...) so to me she's a keep. Siemgi (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me the main problem with those article is not notability, it's that some of them need to be rewritten a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.129.225.186 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent (Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.) and independent of the subject. Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.
- If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.
- Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
* The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
- The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
- Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
- Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
- Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
Sorry for the long quote but I feel it is important to establish just what the criteria for inclusion are. The also-rans on a television game show just don't cut the mustard. L0b0t (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Golden: ANTM, The TYra Show, Rip the Runway, Project Runway Markley; ANTM, Project Runway, Made of Honor Stolz: Lots of MTV stuff, ANTM, The Tyra Show Jones: All of Us, Girlfriend, BET stuff, Celebrity Fit Club, ANTM or had significant following: Kuzmich: again the NY Times, 9 CoverGirl of the Week titles As someone said, they need to be rewritten, not deleted. Siemgi 14:49 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. While the article's pretty well-written, the delete side's rationale was stronger to me. Wizardman 20:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article (which is unreferenced) makes no claims of being or doing anything that makes her notable. Running for Congress and being the daughter of a governor are both significant things in a person's life, but neither make a person Wikipedia-notable, and when there's nothing more that she's done, there's no reason to have this article. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur-created RPG. Article has a highly promotional atmosphere. Linked sites do nothing to establish notability or clarify the nature of the 'attention' this uncompleted project has purportedly garnered in or out of its niche group. In fact, it's not even clear where on said sites the game is mentioned. Google of title turns up no relevant results. Suggested deletion as non-notable, possibly as promotional. Vianello (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Valley Stream, New York#Valley Stream School District #13 --JForget 00:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N - unremarkable elementary school. ukexpat (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 22:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not notable. No external, third-party references are cited, and from a quick search on my part, I haven't been able to find any information on this platform that is substantial enough to cover notability requirements. csaribay (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. It is clear that this article has serious issues that need to be resolved, but currently there is no consensus to delete the material outright. A few editors have proposed merging this material elsewhere to help alleviate notability concerns - whether the best option for the future of this information is to merge it or improve the standalone article is one that should be carefully considered by editors actively maintaining the article. Shereth 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable religous leader. Part of non notable religious institute. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are lacking entirely. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as original research, unclear notability. Mangled grammar → unlikely search term → no redirect. Grand Roi, all of Wikipedia is a work in progress, and yet we do delete parts of it occasionally. Sandstein 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of a previously deleted article. None of the information presented is cited - it's all unsourced original research. Probably isn't notable enough to require a content fork from Halo (series) or Halo 2. csaribay (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 18:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and Verifiability in question. Notability issues due to failure to pass the requirements in WP:BAND. Only claim to notability is winning Red Horse Muziklaban which only gives a recording contract with Viva Records but no sources suggest that they already released a charted album. Verifiability issues as well as Google search reveals no independent reliable sources. Note that "gayuma" means love potion in Filipino so you might get false positives.--Lenticel (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. A merger, if still desired, can be discussed elsewhere. Sandstein 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a dictionary definition of a made up term. It should be in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Why not have "unreliable car" or "hot date" or "blue trousers" as articles. It's just two words, presumptive and nominee. It is not a political office. I presume Obama to be president so why not Presumptive President. I expect Ralph Nader to lose very badly so why not "presumptive super-loser". This article needs to be stopped or Wikipedia is a joke.Presumptive (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2)Strong Keep. Just as superdelegate is very important now bc of this historic election, presumptive nominee is being repeatedly used by media. So the youth who come want to know what that title means and why Obama/McCain are called that instead of just 'pres candidate'. It is not a "made up term". Yes the article needs to be cleaned up for sure/expanded, but it can grow more with more encyclopedic content. Redirecting to "candidate" doesn't really cut it bc the reader won't get any encyclopedic content on presumptive nominees on that article page. 70.108.123.119 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]