The result was Keep Cheers. I'mperator 12:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has no real people in, and no links. Should be improved or deleted. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Googling the name has 83,400 results. The name in Japanese characters will probably have even more than that. Dream Focus 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Sunday Night Project. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These two co-present one TV show but otherwise don't perform together as a "comedy double act" and do other notable projects solo. Not sure a page linking them is required also want to nominate Justin Lee Colins & Alan Carr which is a redirect with a spelling mistake. Holkingers (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is unsourced; explanation of topic is very unclear; appears to be either patent nonsense or original research. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No expert evidence of existence of this phobia. The term does occur in some dictionaries, but one may coin a "phobia" therm from every noun. In other words, nothing beyond dictionary definition. Mukadderat (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speed keep as a disambiguation page (nomination withdrawn)(NAC) --Jmundo 02:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Advert. Law type! snype? 22:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he were the most famous "barista" in the universe it still does not make him notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, the article reads somewhat like an advertisement for his coffee shop, "Square Mile Roasters," thus making it spam. Yardleyman (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the deletion nomination, being the top barista in the world is not a notable award or honour. Yardleyman (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom for IP editor, rationale: based upon rumour and speculation; no reliable source; in fact, no source at all. no opinion from myself. ascidian | talk-to-me 21:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. AfD is not cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overly detailed and unsourced information; reads somewhat like a how-to guide. Doesn't seem to warrant a merge, except for a couple points. Was kept back in 7/07 on the condition that sources be added, and that ain't happened. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary and vain article. Yardleyman (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another for the WP:HAMMER. No title, no track list, no release date. The singer "has not commented much" about the album - there are teaser-snippet interview quotes about who may be working with her and "possible songs that could make" it, but this is an encyclopedia not a fan-site, and articles need to be based on facts. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Easter (album). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to For Your Pleasure. I redirected the rest of the songs from this album, might as well do this one too (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussion to merge/redirect should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G12 copyvio by Closedmouth (Non-admin closure). JohnCD (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a very long, unreferenced list of films in which the subject has appeared. The article would have to be basically re-written in order to meet even the most basic of quality standards. HJMitchell You rang? 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Glossary of basketball terms. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slang term with little evidence of notability as a phrase. The only reference provides a brief explanation but no in-depth analysis is present -- or possible, for that matter. No evidence that the actual phenomenon is notable, either. Powers T 20:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD; article's author deleted prod notice without comment. Article is about an alternative school song written by students of one school; doesn't come close to meeting WP:NSONGS. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also slightly rewrote the article following the notice, this appears to have been ignored; Tommies Till I Die is a theme which has an accompanying song, and as such should not be bound by the notability regulations for songs. In terms of whether or not the theme is "large" or "famous" enough to warrant its own page, I'd like to start by pointing out that the theme affects more than the students of the school, it also affects the old boys and as it seems set to become an established motto of the school, I can infer that it is likely that thousands of people will be affected by the content, and as such it is not merely a personal article. Furthermore, there are far smaller topics that exist on wikipedia, including one I found using the random page tool concerning Povilas Šarūnas who I doubt many people have heard of!
Most importantly though, wikipedia has a role to fill as a way of passing information from one sphere of one society to many other cultures and situations. If articles are deleted because they are considered not "notable", how will this knowledge and information spread? Moreover, notability is an inherently subjective criterion, and as such though some people may not be interested in this article, I feel and I suspect that most of my school colleagues would agree that this topic has as much right to be a part of the global accumulation of information on wikipedia as many of the 12 million other articles. Thanks. Jaldmn (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Many of the keep arguments were based on WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable state academic competition. No sources given to prove that it is notable outside of those people who compete in them. either way (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:44, 8 May 2009 (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)) . |
Fails WP:BIO for scientists and authors both. The article and a sister article Wind Turbine Syndrome are used to promote a theory and books by the subject of the article and are edited primarily by an account and an ISP account that may have a conflict of interest. Drawn Some (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a neologism. Few Google hits, and, oddly, the vast majority of them are in Portuguese. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There was a suggestion to extend the discussion for a few more days, but I feel there has been sufficient time to develop a firm consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:45, 8 May 2009 (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 appears to be a legitimate article at first glance but is actually original research and synthesis used to promote a theory and books by Nina Pierpont and edited primarily by an account and an ISP account that may have a conflict of interest. Drawn Some (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Drawn Some[reply]
*Keep and rewrite. This comes up often enough and has been mentioned in the news enough that it is notable, but the article as it currently exists has serious NPOV problems. Keeping this article neutral will require vigilance. I support changing the name to something more in line with a NPOV as was suggested by Cosmo0. Tspine (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -- One of the problems of emerging science is that there is little accepted peer review at first. Groups that stand to profit from the technology want to suppress negative info. Groups that are opposed take the opposite stance. Health impacts from vibration, especially low frequency vibration are not unknown. Untill the returns are in it would not serve the public interest to be too eager to suppress this potential health problem just because it is inconvenient and may even be a truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.2.11 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dr. Pierpoint's concerns are based on a relatively small sample (a dozen or so) of people living near turbines, of which there are tens of thousands in North America, and probably ten times that many around the world, so their statistical validity must be questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.246.57 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a coatrack to criticise wind turbines. Any reliable sources on the topic of annoyance or health problems from wind turbines (e.g. [14][15][16][17]) should go into Environmental effects of wind power. This is a POV fork. Fences and windows (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A content fork from Pakistan and Kashmir, consisting solely of one editor's view what of Pakistan's boundaries should be if the Kashmir dispute was resolved in its favour. The dispute is adequately covered in the Kashmir article, and disagreement over its wording should be resolved there by consensus, instead of by creating a rival article. Per the Content Fork policy the article was converted into a redirect, but this was reversed by its creator so I've brought it here for a wider set of eyes. Euryalus (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
building with no assertion of notability. Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created by a single-purpose account whose only contribution to wikipedia was to promote heavy metal bands from El Salvador. The only references in this article are to blogs and other non-reliable sites like the Metal Archives, through which the article boasts that the country has 59 bands. Just to keep things in perspective, countries with smaller population include Norway with over 1,000 bands and Finland with over 2,000 bands. Outside Europe, countries like New Zealand and Singapore also boast a larger number of metal bands (175 each, according to the same unreliable source) despite a smaller population to El Salvador. Need I say more? Article is clearly about a non-notable subject. Bardin (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Would anyone mind if we asked some of the El Salvadoran wikipedians if they can do quick search? A spanish-reading editor saying there are no reliable sources would be convincing i think, but i don't want it to look like canvassing (eg. if people think that editors from the country would be biased to keeping), but the wikiproject is dead.YobMod 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 09:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability Capitalismojo (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC) This is a page about some young man who puts humor videos on youtube. He also has reviewed video games. It could be saved as an example of non-noteworthy pages. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable term, it seems. Outside of papers published by the creator it has been used twice, once in an unpublished masters thesis and once in an academic paper. Ironholds (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 09:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unreferenced neologism RadioFan (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nja247 09:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news source--this individual is only notable for one current event in NYC, already covered at Conflicts involving Critical Mass, which is what the Patrick Pogan article actually describes; any relevant content should simply be merged from the latter to the former. evildeathmath 16:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nja247 09:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a band (comprised of one man), though appears to give no allusion to notability and cites absolutely no references. If the band had any significant achievements in its time, there is no mention of any ion the article. It appears to give no information besides a discography and links only to a radio station and to the band's myspace page, neither of which qualify as WP:RS and neither of which suggest notability. Other, reliable, sources are conspicuous only by their absence. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and I know we don't treat YouTube as a reliable source, but this TV performance surely also indicates notability.--Michig (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a minor filmaker who has won some local news production awards as well as some local film festivals. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. RadioFan (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (NAC) --Unionhawk Talk 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure whether this article has been nominated for deletion before. The talk page does carry the comment, 'Not a speedy. Does not meet any of the criteria.Dr Zen 01:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)' I am nominating the page for deletion because I fail to see how the subject is notable enough to have an article of her own. She is apparently a former journalist who now works in the computer games industry. I am sure that there are lots of people in computer games who do not have articles on Wikipedia. Surely the most notable thing about her is that she is Terry Pratchett's daughter. Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for keeping the article, as a Terry Pratchett fan reading the name Rhianna Pratchett in a Overlord newsbulletin stirs my curiousity, and therefor i wiki'd the name, if not for this article i would never have know that she is indeed Terry's daughter. Koesper (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Per G12, taken completely from [23]. SoWhy 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Speed reading technique. No assertion of notability, no third-party references. Actually, the article as it currently stands is a copyvio of the one reference provided, http://www.st.vstour.info/ShultzTables.html, but cannot be tagged as speedy G12 because it was not inserted all at once. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
recently founded, non-notable social network site Passportguy (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nominator withdrew. NAC. Iowateen (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a list of names and nothing more. I suggest this be deleted and Bhatia (caste) be moved here. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. hoax Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax - no sources indicate this person has performed for Obama, or with the Who or Dead. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YO YO YO! You are so wrong. If I put up sources can it stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berman619 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People... I get what yall are sayin but it just aint true. I aint makin it notability to make it more believeable. Come on now... answer my question. You are too scared to respond. IF I PUT SOURCES FOR WHAT I SAID CAN IT STAY UP?
The result was speedily deleted (G10) by WereSpielChequers. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per A7, non-notable autobiography. Tan | 39 19:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My previous attempts to tag this for speedy deletion have resulted in the tag being removed by the creator of the page, who is probably Rich Altman. Seems to be advertising, there are no references mentioning him and I don't think he meets the notability guidelines. God Emperor (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Aspiring actress, singer, model, and dancer", but the highlight of her career seems to be a bit-part in a soap opera. Unnotable. . . Rcawsey (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable television show. (Prod was contested) ZimZalaBim talk 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable street; prod was removed GDonato (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, but I'm not sure why. It's the typical random bilateral pairing, with no sources, no substance, no assertion of notability, no content. Biruitorul Talk 14:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted after being blanked by creator and main contributor. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a product by a company. The article gives no indication that is os as such notable. Passportguy (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to objectively describe a product for reference by its users. Will including more references and objective material prevent the deletion of this post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoffittAJ (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, ive tried to change the language to make it notable for encyclopedia users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoffittAJ (talk • contribs) 14:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In searching for Gluma, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluma , another desensitizer, I wanted to create a page describing an alternative for a harmful product. How is this Gluma post notable and my page not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoffittAJ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, wouldn't then SuperSeal being (quote from page) : "the only non toxic water-based desensitizer available from dentists and clinicians" qualify it as notable. The product is not harmful, like other desensitizers, I would want to know this information if i had to choose between products. I would think the users would too. thanks for your help btw, im a newbie. --MoffittAJ (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be considered notable? --MoffittAJ (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that a lot of companies would want to have a Wikipedia article for marketing purposes, and if we let any old thing receive a Wikipedia article, then users wouldn't be able to find the useful content among the spam. That's why the concept of notability exists.
Effectively, "notability" for a product means that news sources, independent journals, etc. need to be talking about it (and not just running ads or advertorials about it).
Thus, Coca-cola or Microsoft Windows are highly notable and have several articles each. Sony Walkman or Chicken McNugget are notable and each has a long article. Bic biro is a bit notable and has a short article. But this isn't playing in that league.
You ask about people who "have to choose between products", and the answer is, when people do this, they don't normally refer to encyclopaedias to help them. Wikipedia is not a directory of links for prospective purchasers to follow; that's not why we're here and it's not why we're funded.
Does this make sense?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep as the nominator explicitly is not requesting deletion requesting the article be fixed/rewritten, and no !votes have advocated a delete position. AfD is not the forum for this discussion; having said that, I have opened an RfC at Talk:Chojoongdong#RfC:POV discussion (non-admin closure). KuyaBriBriTalk 16:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Chojoongdong" itself is a degrading term against the three media corporations and therefore is a political POV minefield. Not to mention the article has so many gramatical and informational errors that some one would need to write the entire article over again rather than waste their time trying to fix it. Whoever first posted this article is clearly far from neutral and I'm sure no one'll disagree with me on that. Abrakazam689 (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe through dialogue we can make the article more accurate. If this article ended up being deleted without this kind of information being offered, it would be unfair because no effort has been made to have a proper dialogue.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawhiti25 (talk • contribs) 2009/04/30 11:02:00
Abrakazam689, if you don't want an article deleted, don't bring it to AFD. AFD is, as the name says, for deletion. If you want an article rewritten, rewrite it yourself. Rewriting does not involve use of the deletion tool, and is not the sole remit of administrators. Every editor, with or without an account, has the tool for performing a rewrite. And as an editor with an account you also have the tool for, say, renaming the article to Big Three (Korean press). Neither AFD nor deletion is involved in those tasks, and the correct tag is ((cleanup-rewrite)). AFD is not cleanup; and editing and renaming are tools that you yourself have. Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essay piece, NPOV ("Examples of good twitter marketing"), Original research Passportguy (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random laughable combination from the obsessive creator. no resident embassies, not 1 bilateral agreement. In 2006, Montenegro ranked 111th among Estonia’s trade partners. Estonia in 2006 exported goods worth 132.1 thousand euros to Montenegro. According to the Bank of Estonia, there were no mutual direct investments between Estonia and Montenegro. http://www.mfa.ee/eng/kat_176/8142.html minor indeed. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SNOWed Nja247 09:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. I'm aware Canada provides some aid but that can be covered in 1 sentence in Foreign relations of Montenegro LibStar (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
concern = Non-notable per WP:BIO, can find no info on subject online, probable hoax MuffledThud (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first part of a few nominations to remove a couple of the pages similar to this in Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries. The basis for these lists is inherently flawed. Countries do not invent things. People do. It is sheer nationalism to pretend otherwise IMO, and hence WP:FRINGE. Quite apart from this, it is extremely difficult to establish good criteria for these lists, making maintenance tricky. Is inclusion restricted to X people? Or are people working in X allowed? What if they mostly worked in X, where of X nationality, but made their invention elsewhere? And the nature of inventions themselves is very tricky. Edison is commonly credited with the lightbulb. But many predecessors of different nationalities made less well-publicised inventions shortly before that were indeed rather similar. See also discussion at FTN.
All this leads me to believe that these lists suffer fundamental problems with Wikipedia:neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability that are unlikely ever to be resolved. Moreschi (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And on the point of secondary identity, I refer you to list of Indian inventions and discoveries. If it weren't for systemic bias, you'd be seeing a lot of secondary identity arguments there. It may appear, from the outside, that "Everything comes from India", but within India itself there is controversy on whether inventions, buildings, and so forth are of Muslim or Hindu origin, as exemplified by the works of Purushottam Nagesh Oak and others.
I suggest a comparison of the ideas of P. N. Oak with the idea propounded here that everything even remotely related to Scotland ("They were in Scotland when they did it.") is Scottish, to see where the difficulty, and the underlying problem, lies. It is not merely a sourcing problem. It's a scope definition and an agenda-pushing problem.
Can a NPOV scope for such articles even be defined in the first place? This is the question that you have yet to address. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we, too, have people grouped together by nationality. We even have them grouped together by a combination of nationality and the fact that they are inventors. We have that at Category:Scottish inventors. Uncle G (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been the scope of the article since its very first revision. And it isn't the scope that we're talking about. Maybe such a scope would satisfy the concerns of the editors who are objecting to this article. But none have spoken up since Dahn and Mandsford both made the suggestion. And even Dahn hasn't argued in favour of a simple rename and refactoring of the introduction (although that outcome does accord with xyr actual rationale and fully satisfy the concerns that xe expresses). Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply][…] in some cases, the invention's Scottishness is determined by the fact that they were brought into existence in Scotland […] by non-Scots working in the country.
The result was speedy delete. Per G3. Vandalized copy of SM Supermalls. SoWhy 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy removed by administrator, pure hoax. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 12:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable group, with no official recognition. Possibly a hoax. Ironholds (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an advertisement with no actual encyclopedic material. Ejg930 (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP bollocks. Ironholds (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost entirely unsourced list that is unverifiable and unmaintainable. Kevin (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working with San Diego County street gangs for over 20 years. I have pooled this list from accurate law enforcement reports (federal and local), gang intervention councilors, ex-gang members, and from active gang members. Unfortunately, there are almost no sources of published primary literature that list off these gangs. That is why the sources section is short.
Some notes on the comments:
“This is a legal headache waiting to happen.” Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I don’t understand what kind of legal headace this list would cause, please elaborate.
“These are legitimate street gangs in San Diego.”—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.80.234 (talk) "Legitimate street gangs": isn't that an oxymoron? “DurovaCharge! 20:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Legitimate street gang as opposed to wanna bes? Legitimacy can be open to debate though.
“the problem is that both sources do get facts for a number of reasons. Probably the most important one is that informants & gang members lie. So the article title probably should be "List of alleged San Diego county Gangs.”-- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC) It is true that informant/gang members lie. Usually this is done when a subject is under pressure from law enforcement to give some information. Subjects will sometimes give false information to appease an officer or lawyer. This information is them followed up on, and almost always discredited. None of the gangs on this list were obtained from situations such as those.
“…who can agree on the definition of "gang"?” Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Very true! Some of the gangs on this list can be surely open to debate as a gang depending on a certain enforcement branch’s/municipality’s/person’s/law’s definition of what a gang is. That is why there is a discussion section, and why wiki allows edits from the general public.
“Not important. Most of these gangs wouldn't be notable enough anyway. Enough said.” --Sky Attacker (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Matter of personal opinion. More than a few of these gangs have been in the national spotlight. Dagosocal (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to T-Pain. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
T-Pain's vanity label (and an imprint of Akon's vanity label at that). Nappy Boy's only hit records are T-Pain's own albums, and there's only one other notable artist on the label (and he's barely notable). Little or no media coverage of significance. Fails WP:CORP. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. G12, copyright violation, article is directly copied from IMDB and http://www.seriesnow.com/mexican-telenovelas/palomala.html Mgm|(talk) 11:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a minor TV series with no assertion of notability. No information besides the cast and a synopsis. The only source cited is IMDB, though having followed the link the only information there is a cast list so there is no source for any other information. The information form IMDB appears to have been wholesale copied and pasted onto here. Copyvio? HJMitchell You rang? 08:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) HJMitchell You rang? 08:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable media personality. All claims to notability are via association with other people, not notable in his own right. Also unsourced. MBisanz talk 08:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no assertion of notability, and borderline spam Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:*Note Appears to use large sections of text from this PDF (HTML version from Google) Radiant chains (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Copy-and-paste from multiple sources, see Talk:Smart Card Web Server. Radiant chains (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Anyone is welcome to create a redirect to Toxicity (album); I have not done so because it doesn't seem to be the sense of this discussion. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not released as a single. Unable to find reliable sources that indicate notability of song, beyond mention that "Shimmy" was in Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4. This information is already covered at Toxicity (album). The rest of the stub-article for the song is an interpretation of lyrics. Radiant chains (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Football player, who despite being signed to professional clubs since 2007, has never actually played a game, thus failing WP:ATHLETE (note that a call-up to an U20 team does not confer notability, as only full international caps are deemed to do so). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the article contains no information besides a track listing and cites no references besides Amazon. The artist is notable but, if there's anything special about this album that goes to notability, the article certainly doesn't infer it. Perhaps it's worth a sentence or two in Philip Bailey's article, but no more than that as far as I can tell. HJMitchell You rang? 08:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 06:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination, a few minor agreements doesn't cut it. the Pakistan Foreign Ministry has close to nothing to say about Argentina [28]. LibStar (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? This article is relying on Google Groups (aka USENET, aka a PRIMARY SOURCE) as its source of information. How does this not violate WP:BLP and our general policy on notability and verifiability again? Oh and beyond that, citing ticklishguyscasting.net as a source? Sickening. Just sickening. There are no logical rules for inclusion or exclusion on this page. DELETE JBsupreme (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Closed a bit early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is one of the most laughable combinations I've seen created by the obsessive creator. Kazakhstan govt says Due to a number of reasons, including geographical remoteness, weak investment potential, trade and economical relations with Argentina are insufficiently active. LibStar (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Closed a bit early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination from the obsessive creator. the statement about the South Ossetia War can easily be covered in International reaction to the 2008 South Ossetia war. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to W. E. Blackhurst. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A drama with a local theme being performed at one location. No evidence of notability for the play or for the book from which it is derived. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nothing stands out as notable about the embassy itself. any relevant information can be covered in Ireland–United States relations LibStar (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another random pairing for the article creator. No reason why this page should stay. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 06:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is another randomised selection and fails WP:N A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 19:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect to Lee Kwun Leung Vincent. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable painter. Lacks independent references to establish notability or verifiability of this auto-biographical article. Drawn Some (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination from the obsessive creator. Estonian govt says No economic agreements have been concluded between the two countries and there are no draft economic agreements under negotiation and Argentina was 66th largest trade partner for Estonia. Exports to Argentina amounted to 504 thousand euros (88th among trade partners). LibStar (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted under G11 as spam. Non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 06:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No independent coverage for this web site, no web site at the given address, no way to verify the contents of the article. Wronkiew (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination from the obsessive creator. Google news search doesn't reveal much [55] LibStar (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect to Lee Kwun Leung Vincent. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable painter. Lacks independent references to establish notability or verifiability of this auto-biographical article. Drawn Some (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty clear neologism. Less than 100 Google hits, a large number of which point to one essay by Lew Rockwell, where the word is used exactly twice. eaolson (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains no useful information to a person using Wiki. Furthermore, the references that it does list do not pertain to any of the information used on the page. keystoneridin! (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Bump. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album track. Fails WP:NSONGS (note that Radio Disney is not an accepted chart, as it is a single vendor countdown). Attempts to redirect it have been consistently reverted (possibly by the same editor, judging from the timing of account creation vs. the anon that used to do this). Unlikely search term, so deletion seems appropriate. —Kww(talk) 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mgm|(talk) 11:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Few, if any, of the facts are supported by reliable sources. The link to the articles in variety and NY Times appear to be blog-style postings disguised as articles. The SportingNews 'poll' seems to be voted by anyone. I see no assertion of notability, other than these. Chzz ► 07:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proxy nomination submitted by –xeno talk 02:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC) for anon:[reply]
“ | IMHO grounds for deletion:
- I'm starting this AfD in good faith - if we arrive at a consensus that this article is in fact merited I'm fine with that. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC) [57][reply] |
” |
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. the only thing I could find from google news search was this [58] LibStar (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Clan Cameron. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Scottish Clan. Article was deleted by Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and is back. The reasons then are much the same as the text is the same, article is not notable Czar Brodie (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. google news search doesn't show much [59] LibStar (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only notable interactions these two have had are: 1) in 1935, during the Abyssinia Crisis, Romanian Foreign Minister Nicolae Titulescu spoke out forcefully at the League of Nations in favour of Ethiopian sovereignty and against Italian aggression; 2) Nicolae Ceauşescu was a good friend of Mengistu Haile Mariam (who was, however, far from being his closest African friend), also visiting him on an African tour in 1983. The first part can easily be mentioned (indeed is) in Titulescu's biography, and in an expanded article on the Abyssinia Crisis. The second is due for mention in a revamped article on Ceauşescu, which will doubtless refer to his policies in Africa. I imagine it can also be mentioned in Mengistu's article. But the point is that while the pair have had two somewhat notable encounters, sources do not exist documenting an actual relationship between them, which is what is needed for an article with this scope. Given that, we should delete. Biruitorul Talk 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
advert for a nonnotable software outsourcing sweatshop: "multinational computer technology corporation that provides software and services that make technology work for both enterprises and consumers" Mukadderat (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* Strong delete See Wikipedia:ANB#Reporting_Page:_SupportSoft_as_an_high_threat_illegal_virus_trap. Zazaban (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Neologism. None of the references assert actual usage of this term. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a software that fails WP:GNG; sourced to the project's pages - as near as I can tell from the text, the software was deprecated after release 1.1 so it seems short-lived and unlikely to have achieved the notability required to have an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything in reliable sources about this future album, so I don't think it meets notability criteria at the moment. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Referees aren't notable in the same was athletes are, so WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply, otherwise non-notable. MBisanz talk 05:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a writing group that does not establish notability. A search for sources writing about the group turn up an article from a local weekly and a brief mention. That's insufficient to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nom the sources do not meet the criteria for notability. One local article and as the nom stated a brief mention in the second source listed above. The only link with the Wiki article and the second source is to a blog. Seems like a vehicle to advertise the blog.Meph Yazata (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had tagged this compilation album speedy A9 on the grounds that, though there are a few songs by notable artists, the label is not notable. No assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Seahouses. Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created by a WP:SPA called "Seahousesfestival" (account renamed to Mmytik [66]), this article appears to fail WP:NOTE as it has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of its subject. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. One (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was submitted to PROD under the following grounds: "Not playing at the highest level, does not meet WP:ATHLETE" by User:HeureusementIci. Contesting the PROD and taking this to AfD on the following reasons: I would like the community to build or clarify a consensus on whether junior players representing their country in international contests do meet the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:Athlete. Also see discussion at User talk:HeureusementIci#PROD on Indika Wettasinghe. Nominated for clarification of consensus so vote Neutral. MLauba (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. We seem to agree that while this is a viable topic, the current article is a rather useless unsourced dictionary definition. Until somebody writes a competent stub, I'm redirecting the article to (child abuse, acting solely in my capacity as editor and not as any binding part of this closure. Sandstein 06:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like original research to me. meco (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The policy on no original research is also cited. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only meaningful source for this article is a personal web site. The article was created by IPlant (talk · contribs). I expressed my discomfort about the article to the creator, but was willing to ignore it as long as it was unobtrusive. Now however, a brand new account, nonlinearity (talk · contribs), has begun to spam wikilinks to the article into a variety of neuroscience articles, so it needs to go. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entry had been marked orphan so I added links from the deep brain stimulation, brain implant, brain pacemaker, cognotechnology and wirehead entries because they seem directly related. Nonlinearity (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced genealogical article (relying on a German Wikipedia user's page and a personal genealogical research) possibly relating one family of questionable notability to another family of questionable notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established for Wikipedia and apparently a vanity bio. Laval (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Grateful Dead (album). I've not merged anything but the history's there for anyone who wants to. Flowerparty☀ 00:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to I Robot (album). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Damn the Torpedoes (album). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to For Your Pleasure. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Roxy Music (album). –Juliancolton | Talk 14:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Stranded (album). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to For Your Pleasure. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Honky Château. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to For Your Pleasure. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Lust for Life (album). Cirt (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to 2112 (album). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is no appetite for deletion here. Discussions on how to improve the article and whether the article should be redirected or merged or renamed should continue on the article's talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a magazine article; WP:NOT for guides and how-to articles. KurtRaschke (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I can't take into account Exit2DOS2000's argument, as it does not make sense to me. Sandstein 06:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is basically original research, with no support for any of the claims made. In addition it verges on an instruction manual. I would have suggested merging sourced content to Country Fire Service but there is not any. Mattinbgn\talk 00:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable male fashion model - 7-bubёn >t 00:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources establishing that this is a notable relationship. The only salient fact, that they are members of the EU, is covered (as one may have guessed) at Member State of the European Union. Biruitorul Talk 16:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Game guide for a non-notable Pokemon level. The only references to it are in strategy guides explaining how to get past it. Pokemon wiki already contains the content in this article. Wronkiew (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was the consensus is for delete. It cannot be verified at this time that this show will take place. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This TV show hasn't been confirmed, it is at the moment only an idea in Simon Cowell's head. The article contains a lot information that the author has simply guessed or made up. For example, Cowell's idea was to have the show in the autumn and not to replace American Idol with The X Factor. The person who wrote the article has made up a start date, judges and all sorts of other information. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 14:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable. unsourced Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. After reviewing this and the previous 2 discussions, it appears that consensus hasn't changed (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a tough one, but I don't see established notability. Subject is a Philadelphia ophthalmologist and 2x unsuccessful candidate for Congress, neither of which are enough to establish notability. So, per WP:BIO there must be published, independent, and reliable secondary source material published about the subject. There are some such articles, but they are all pretty weak and in the context of the subject's failed political candidacy, and thus, per WP:BIO not enough in of themselves enough to establish notability. --A. Gorilla (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no comments. No prejudice against a speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites no sources, and I can't find any third party sources (everything on a google news search seems related to a football team, not the talker). Without them, this doesn't meet WP:N/WP:WEB. In other words, if we actually wrote this article properly, by summarizing sources rather than writing our own opinions, there'd apparently be nothing to write. The last AFD was 3+ years ago, before modern notability guidelines existed. Chiliad22 (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 15:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, unreferenced Dlabtot (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references supplied between them satisfy WP:V (because it's shown that he exists and is a composer) and WP:RS (because he receives at least a passing mention in reliable sources; the first one I looked at, kiel.de, is clearly over the bar as a RS).
It remains to be shown that Hauke Harder satisfies WP:N. However, WP:PRESERVE trumps WP:N because the former is a policy and the latter is a mere guideline. This is why Uncle G wrote this:
"Notability deals in subjects and topics, not content. That a subject is non-notable does not mean that verifiable information about a subject should be excluded from Wikipedia. It means that the subject is not an appropriate one for an article."—Uncle G in On Notability
In other words, if Harder is judged to fail WP:N, then the onus is on those who argue that Hauke Harder's article should be deleted, to show where the verifiably-sourced material that's here should be merged to. You do not get to cut reliably-sourced, verifiable information out of Wikipedia!
But a merge is a "keep" outcome.
It follows that this discussion should be closed as keep and a WP:N-based merge discussed on the article's talk page, or at WP:PM, in the normal way.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete - I disagree with S Marshal when he says that WP:PRESERVE trumps WP:N... My take is that WP:PRESERVE assumes that Notability has been established in the first place. The article in question does not establish that the subject is Notable (while fairly heavily cited, most of the citations are either self-published or are promotional in nature.) What the article needs is reference to reliable sources that are independant of the subject, sources that talk about the subject. A passing mention in a programe or promotion is not enough. Blueboar (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:COMPOSER compositions played in many contemporary classical concerts pohick (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nn dicdef. One (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Only nominator (who is a SPA) and one SPA supports deletion. (NAC)--Unionhawk Talk 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page did not originate with Ms Secrest’s approval. It contained not just inaccuracies, but one uncalled for, deliberate slight against her (that was corrected). She does not want a page on Wikipedia. I think she has a right to privacy and her wishes respected in this regard. It’s very largely a generational issue and she is not comfortable or familiar with the robust culture that defines the Web. She is not someone who enjoys any great degree of computer literacy. Ms Secrest is a distinguished biographer and National Humanities Medal winner (2006). Her information is widely available at Random House and in many other places. I am a supporter (small financial and not yet editorial) and an habitual user of Wikipedia. I do feel in this instance that, given Ms Secrest’s personal position and wishes, she is entitled to have this page removed. — Jamesog52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
((citation))
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)