< 30 August | 1 September > |
---|
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Debate was never transcluded. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING, the article seems more focused on promoting the product than providing information. Severely lacks encyclopedic value. --> RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 05:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Close appears to be a bit late. lifebaka++ 15:52, 12 September 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)) . |
Non-notable product. Is not released under creative commons (only the text of the website is), recently created, so WP:CRYSTAL on notability. CSD-A7 needs to include a provision for non-notable products. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 14:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Mr.Z-man 23:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page was put up for speedy deletion. May I ask why? If it is for the dancing gif, I taged it wrong. There are so many different copyright licenses and none really fit the description for these images. Imagery from this game is usable on web sites. So I'm an using the ((GFDL)) tag.
If it is because the page is missing something, give me a chance I just started working on it. For citations reputable sources are few and far between the game isn't even in commercial yet. It's still open beta.
Chzz where is the copyright violation these images are free under gnu Jasenm222 (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games "The Video Games Images department is a working group of individuals dedicated to ensuring that all video game-related articles have images, whether they are boxart, screenshots, or both, as well as the required fair use rationale." The game is cheesy how do I get images that aren't??? I admit I have much more info then most articles. I am moving to user page I'll try to rewrite more Blah. Jasenm222 (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a case of BLP1E, as the musicianship appears unsourced and of dubious notability and once you strip the arrest and conviction out we have a generally non-notable individual. Spartaz Humbug! 22:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography by author of print-on-demand books. No real claim in article of meeting WP:BIO. Prod contested by author without showing notability. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages (his books):
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article's author has admitted on the talk page to creating the page in anticipation of future notability, rather than in response to current notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This is an example of why AfD is not a vote. Let's see here: the discussion on Coldplay Expert's name is irrelevant to the article's merits; it doesn't really matter. Anyways, the keep arguments seem to be: 1) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - The reason that other artists' unreleased songs pages exist is that they are backed by reliable sources. (Or, should they really be deleted because they're not actually notable? As you can see, other pages matter very little. This does not mean that the existence of other stuff makes this non-notable, but rather that it fails to make it notable per se.) 2) WP:EFFORT - WP:POTENTIAL is invoked when an article is in terrible condition but is about a notable subject. Many keep !votes saying that the article needs work have failed to, in addition, demonstrate how the subject is notable. 3) WP:ONLYESSAY - Often, people cite essays because they sum up their arguments well. It is true that violating WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INHERITED are not reasons for deletion; however, reliable sources have not been found. 4) The sources provided by Coldplay Expert have been refuted successfully by Deserted Cities at the end. Note, however, that I am willing to userfy the article if someone wishes to continue working on it and is able to really find reliable sources to support its notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's obvious that Coldplay is notable, this article isn't, as I feel it violates WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INHERITED. And although the article has twelve sources, only one (the eleventh source) is slightly reliable; the twelfth source doesn't mention what's stated in the article, and the other ten are linked to WikiColdplay, an unsourced wiki about the band. It also doesn't help that the article was created by User:Coldplay Expert. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL, how dare you say that my edits are not neutral. The only thing that I have edited so far is coldplay articles because I like them. Im not some fanboy or something like that OK? and do you know where I got the idea from? Unreleased Pink Floyd. That article has only 4 sources. Look I tried my best and If you and everyone else thinks that this is not satifactory then Ill take it back and work on it some more OK? But that comment about me not being neutral is a lie. I do admit that this article needs some work and Ill will try my hardest to keep this page up and running with reliable resources. Think about all of the other articles when they were first created. They are small and may only have a few sources. This is no exeption. In fact the reason that I made it up is because I thought to myself "hmm, I have no idea what the song Idot is or A Ghost, I know ill make my own article on it." I am begging you to please reconsider your desision to get rid of this article.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, ALL of my edits are not for the good of Coldplay, its for the ggod of wikipedia and the people who are curiopus about this subjectMy edits on Coldplay are actually usefull and contain sources unlike other people like guitarherochristopher. I try my hardest to make sure that all of my edits are up to wiki's standards. (trust me i learned the hard way!)--Coldplay Expert (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You implied that my edits are not neutral. And i belive that you are a member of the "Others" that you said might think that im not neutral. I never said that this article is mine. EVER OK? and further more, I would defend this article even if you made it. I belive that this article is a good idea and if there is an entire article on Pink Floyd unreleased songs then there should be one on Coldplay. After all we do know a considerable amount of info on them. (whether or not it is on this article is up for debate). yes i know that this needs work but the overal idea of this article is a good one and deserves a chance. Yes Other stuff does exist--Coldplay Expert (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Solely due to the fact that other artists have got their own "X Unreleased" pages (or similar). EDIT: Although it doesn't make any difference, I want to change my vote to a full keep. - И i m b u s a n i a talk 07:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea is there, it just needs to be worked on a little bit.--Orangesodakid (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is in its infancy and needs a ton of more work but over all it is s good idea. And by the way, Darrenhusted I take offence to what you said. It isnt crap. Its just an article that needs more attention.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok here's some sources
Bucket For a Crown-[4]
Minning on the Moon/The Fall of Man/Bucket For a Crown-[5]
And this one could be used for some of the songs that have never been heard [6] --Coldplay Expert (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? that would be great! but I cant seem to add any sources to the article can someone else. One more thing, why does the wikicoldplay stuff need to be thrown away...it has alot of info for sone of the songs.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So has a concensus been reached yet? By the way thanks Hemlock Martinis--Coldplay Expert (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright so on the 7th a consensus sould be reached.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are most of the List of unreleased Pink Floyd songs but we still have them.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world does :WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS help you or even hurt my argument? Also, I belive that you and Darrenhusted are the only people opposing the existance of this article now. It it obviously a good idea and im pretty sure that every source (with the exeption of wikicoldplay) is reliable. Once again Keep--Coldplay Expert (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Main concern of the nomination appears to be that the article is lacking in sources, rather than notability. As stated by the keep votes below (ex. Technohead and Daniel), sources can indeed be found, even though the subject was mentioned by BBC Radio one. Cheers, I'mperator 16:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no such chart as the "Indie hits" chart by The Official Charts Company, it is simply a playlist composed by BBC Radio One. As there are no archives of what charted and when, this is pure WP:OR with a lack of WP:RS to prove WP:N. Dale 20:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Also listed:[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was originally PRODed with the rationale "Footballer who does not meet the WP:ATHLETE and WP:N guidelines", then the PROD was subsequentially removed with no explanation. A brief Google search does not seem to bring up any substantial news hits other than general sports reports, which do not confer notabailty as per WP:NTEMP. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 19:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a scientific paper rather than an encyclopedia article. Original research. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:26, 31 August 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)) . |
SIMILARLY the hydrtropy is a generalized concept like solubility, infact its a kind of solubility but having different approach of solubility, every article is new untill its unknown to people and may be the writing pattern of this article make it research article in first sight.
This is just a general topic written to make aware students about availability of one of the technique to solve their problem. And i use wikipedia and thankful from the depth of my heart for providing me such platform.
I KNOW THAT WIKIPEDIA REMOVES THE CONTENT IF IT HAVES NO PROPER REFERENCES, so i think that if any one who wants to know detail of technology must go through the references and he may find what he/she search for.
HERE i also like to say this technology is not in-sole research of my proffessor, and he dont seek to promote his own work by this article because he already publish 150+ national and international research paper, i just seek his help because i m not a expert for writing such article, At the same time any wrong information about technology confuse the users and students
The ONLY MOTTO of writing this article to nourish a new technology to develop it to grasshood level that it become as common as solubility and like SOLUBILITY article on wiki no body request to delete such important article And thats why i think i justified each question requested for deletion of this article. The ANGLE OF PERCEPTION changes every thing, and now itself i m requesting all friends (The Wiki Users) to edit this article in format as u wish to be look compatible but this material is no doubt eligible to be exist on wiki -- Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan.chandna (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) — Chandan.chandna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
do not delete the article provides solubility enhancement by hydrotropes in a nutshell.compendious summary of hydrotropes and drugs is gainful.Selection of the the title may be unfitting to the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshianshu (talk • contribs) — Joshianshu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This article must not be deleted because it provide a revolutionary concept to enhance the solubility (a major problem with pharmaceutical moeities) of substance(s). Increase in solubility is directly related to absorption (bioavailability)which inturn decrease the dosage regimen and improve patient compliance.
It provides a platform to researcher to explore the exact mechanism of solubility enhancement through hydrotropy.
According to me very few people are aware of this novel technique, so let the wikipedia make change happen and contribute to the pharmaceutical sector facing major problem of solubility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumitkumarjain.mcops (talk • contribs) 07:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC) — Sumitkumarjain.mcops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created by single-purpose account (literally, the only edit), named User:Trundu. Has been unreferenced and orphaned for two years. I can't find anything that looks relevant on the web so am suspecting a hoax or in-universe fiction. However, I know sometimes archaeological cultures don't show up well so I thought I'd list it here and see if anybody has heard of it. Rigadoun (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as the Sonic Boom World Tour. All content in this article is reffering to the Kiss Alive/35 World Tour. Such information can be found on the bands official website: kissonline.com Ckulas (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film. No notable cast members or producers/directors. No major studio or distributor. No independent coverage at all. Suspected spam. Contested PROD, removed by original author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record label. No significant independent coverage at all. Bongomatic 17:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that this book ever received any mainstream attention. The article cites no reliable, third-party sources — indeed, no sources at all. It was created in March 2007 by a a now-banned user who repeatedly engaged in anti-Muslim POV pushing. The lack of mainstream attention means that it is not only impossible to meet verifiability, but also impossible to write a neutral article as our policies require. Any article would invariably give undue weight to fringe anti-Islam sources. *** Crotalus *** 17:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization. No google news hits. Only google web hits are to the organization itself, web rating services, or press releases from chiropractors who have been "honored". WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. (the title is JVS Limited but its actually a biography written by Jvslimited (talk · contribs)) —SpaceFlight89 17:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't source this opinion piece. ➲ REDVERS The internet is for porn 17:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 22:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood of Angels, this album has very little notability it its own right, lacks significant coverage, etc. Chzz ► 00:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Chzz has been kindly warned [11] about making excessive many Deletion Prods on articles. This is another example of the witch hunt that this user has been campaigning for against this band. Chzz is systematically removing all the Nox Arcana albums, having just removed the Darklore Manor album last week without getting consensus, and falsely claiming it ref'd self-pub sources (Fangoria and other music magazines are not published by the band, they are 3rd party sources). The Necronomicon album is certainly noteworthy and the sources are reliable. Nox Arcana itself has charted on Billboard in the Top Ten in the Holiday Charts. The Necronomicon album is mentioned in a book, Strange Sound of Cthulhu, in reference to Lovecraft inspirations, it has been featured on TV and used in several indie films and at major theme parks like Busche Gardens and Universal Studios. It is also the subject of 2 lawsuits for copyright infringement for other bands copying Nox Arcana's music (1. listed here on Google News, and 2. listed here on Fangoria, a long standing and reliable publication for horror entertainment news. I recommend a strong keep for this article and a warning to Chzz on further attempts to remove the other Nox Arcana albums. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting because another discussion long ago had suggested breaking up the main article into separate discography pages. Another admin had said the main article was too long so someone started the discography for Darklore Manor and I guess it got expanded after that. As for the Cthulhu book, it was not published by the band but by another publisher and covers a variety of topics of books, music and many other things devoted to Lovecraft. It is not self-published. It was published by a music magazine called Music Street Journal. And I think that the book uses Nox Arcana's Necronomicon CD cover says something about the notability of the album itself. I don't see any other bands who got featured on a book. Ebonyskye (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album is by a notable band (they have their own article); it is on a notable label; it has at least one reference on it to back up its notability; they have ten other album articles. Can I please urge people to consider starting merge discussions on the article talk page rather than bringing them here for outright deletion. That is what it says at both WP:MUSIC and WP:ALBUM if you really don't want to see artists have an article per album. – B.hotep •talk• 09:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient reliable support for a concrete, established, recurring "day" with this name. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 22:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. This link [12] implies that he hasn't made an appearance in a league that isn't even pro. Spiderone 15:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 22:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability as he doesn't play in a professional league. Most Google searches tend to come up with the basketball player. This site [13] says he hasn't made an appearance anyway. Spiderone 15:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 22:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a professional competition. Lack of sources on the subject. Spiderone 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Anti-cliché. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscernible bogus article. Nuberger13 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 22:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlicensed part 15 radio station, no references in reliable third-party sources to meet verifiability or notability thresholds. As an unlicensed radio station, does not enjoy the general notability of FCC-licensed broadcast radio stations. Article's author has repeatedly altered the article to claim Class D status but per the FCC database there is no licensed radio station in the entire state of Mississippi on 87.9 FM. -- Dravecky (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per the creator's talk page, this is the latest in a lengthy string of similar articles deleted by speedy deletion, prod, or AfD over the last two years. The most recent AfD discussions are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/89X, Saucier New Rock Alternative and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power 89.5, Saucier Hit Music Channel. - Dravecky (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fruit preserves. JForget 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spam article about an upstart company. Redirect to Fruit preserves. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Also an autobiography. Prod denied by author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Unconvincing arguments all round, suggest a merge/redirect discussion be initiated at the article talkpage. Skomorokh 12:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bit character in The Venture Bros. who's article consists of unsourced original research and unsubstantiated claims. Basically a fanpage. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Faithful Companions of Jesus Cheers, I'mperator 16:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear how this subect meets the notability criteria, and I wasn't able to find independent sources to confirm this organization's notability. In addition, the article is written in a distinctly promotional tone, and appears to be written by someone with a conflict of interest. Recreated by original creator after {prod} deletion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 22:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt meet the notability(people) criteria. A personal bio page? Has anyone ever herd of this chef? All refs point to his own webpages. Gallytrain (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, completely unreferenced, seems to be something invented by "a forum user". Stephenb (Talk) 11:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unsigned band: fails WP:BAND. Speedy deletion template removed without explanation by an editor with the same name as one of the "associated acts". I42 (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD and declined. Considered that fails WP:COMPANY and WP:N. Some sources are unverifiable. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 22:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your commments and considerations. I'm busy reading through the guidelines. I do however wish to stipulate that the reason that company is not publicitly written about on notable resources and news related sites is due to them being under closed covers for many many years. My entire thesis is an attempt to bring this company to light as they were involved with arms deals (positive and negative publicity), manufacturers of some of the world's largest "fighter jets". "tanks" and arms.
I will write this article in a more factualy manner if this will assist? I will also provide history, timelines etc, in no attempt at all to promote this company.
Let me know. Southwiki (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you mentioned missing steps 1 and 3. Please could you stipulate which steps those are. Sorry I'm so confused with all the rules and guidelines. Learning :) Southwiki (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed steps as requested.I've also added citations and references Southwiki (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article placed by a WP:SPA about a potential candidate in an upcoming election. With no refs to show notability this article fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:POLITICIAN. I42 (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be further discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article can easily be merged into the main article, as it will barely make the article bigger, and can fit into the article easily. It is currently a content fork, which violates [WP:LISTS]]. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 09:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be further discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently a content fork, and can easily be merged into the main article, which is Fiona Apple. The reason for merging is because the awards section could fit perfectly into the article, and will not make the article a lot bigger, but by just a little. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 09:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 22:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I'm all for inclusion, but I think this is one of those cases where you just have to give up and start over. At first glance, it seems like it would be easy to fix; just get rid of the formatting errors, etc. But I started trying to edit it, and I gave it a good 15 minutes before I stopped pulling out my hair and headed over here. In some places, I have no idea what's being said. Most of this is a cut-and-paste job. The article is not properly named (it says Redeemer's University all through the article, and that's actually the correct way). I suspect a COI, but this article is the only activity the user's ever had on Wikipedia, so I can't tell for sure. You could throw up a notability flag here too, though I'm all for every school having an article. There's several weasel words, portions are like an advertisement, etc. None of these are reasons for deletion in themselves, but in combination they're disasterous. So, I'm nominating this for deletion. At the very least, I'm hoping someone will see this nomination and fix up the article themselves. Skittleys (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my nomination...: I've read the appropriate notability criteria more thoroughly, and am now certain that it fails. I have used several search engines, and the results beyond its own website don't give any information about the institution itself. This also brings up WP:SOURCES. I also tried checking Google News, and found no results (note: you have to do this with "Redeemer's University" in quotes; otherwise, you get results for other universities of the same name). The WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY policies should also be noted. — Skittleys (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus suggests that this individual is not notable enough for inclusion; the arguments for keeping the article merely assert that she is notable, without much evidence. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking substantial GHits and lacking any GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:ENT. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted under A7 as a non-notable, made-up "holiday." PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wine weed wednesday[edit]
Fails WP:N \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and with no GNEWS. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is consensus here that the subject meets WP:ENT and that the article ought to be kept as a result. Skomorokh 12:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable autobiography. He's had several voice acting roles on television shows, but they are all dubbing jobs, doing English versions of Japanese programs. The only third party coverage I can find is mentions, and it's for theatre work, presumably it's the same person, but none of it establishes notability. Hairhorn (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Las Virgenes Unified School District. No prejudice against keeping if sources are later found establishing independent notability. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not establish notability of school to have own article might be better to delete this and redirct/move this to Las Virgenes Unified School District? Oo7565 (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 22:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since no assertion exists that his album is generally noteworthy Oo7565 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I judge there to be consensus here that the known sources do not satisfy community norms concerning inclusion. Skomorokh 12:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only sources for this are brief mentions in internal US intelligence documents, which do not fulfil the requirement. Guest houses are not an automatic pass of the WP:GNG, and should not be treated as if they are. Note that contrary to claims by certain users on similar AfDs I have no idealogical feelings I'm trying to push, and I am not trying to censor the wiki - I simply want to demand of these articles the same standards we demand for everything else. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. G11'd by me, by accident because I didn't read the tags. But the discussion is moot now. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 525R.com[edit]
Promotional and poorly written article about a non-notable website. Repeatedly recreated and finally salted at 525r.com and now here. Speedy has been declined due to assertion of notability. I am not convinced that being the world's 2 millionth most popular website is really a claim to notability and I propose that we delete and salt this article, speedily if at all possible. DanielRigal (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so there's no indication of notability aside from the Arkansas release and the JCK article. I'm not a diamond expert, but there doesn't seem to be much setting this diamond apart from others. Also nominating article about the finder, Glenn Worthington, based on the fact that he has no notability outside the diamond's discovery. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The burden of proof is on editors favouring retention of the article to show that the topic is notable. Here, we have only arguments to the effect that the topic might meet the WP:GNG (if we kept every article on possibly notable topics, well...). Closing without prejudice against recreation should significant coverage in independent reliable sources be found, feel free also to request undeletion for userfication. Skomorokh 12:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A user contested the prod and added a link to IMDB, a blog, and the official website. I can't find significant coverage for this. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With no intention at all to be argumentative (I didn't even know the page existed), I've looked at the guidelines and I'm still not clear on what's notable. The film before this one, CREDO, was worthy of two articles in RECORDING magazine for how the accompaniment was created after the on-set a capella singing. This film expands that technique; to my knowledge, it's the most complex musical created in this way. If that's not notable, and its writer/director/composer being a well-reviewed but not particularly famous mystery novelist also isn't, then I agree it probably shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. Thanks. Noteon (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the official site isn't vanispamcruftisement.
It was nice to see this article appear, but if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, happy deleting! Noteon (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under A7 speedy criterion. Specifically, the website doesn't assert any real notability. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 02:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Revengemail.com[edit]
In my opinion does not assert notability beyond trinket self-published/aggrandizing claims. Unreferenced. (speedy was removed, and since I have no idea about the notability of this, decided to start AfD) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep. The article can be redirected or merged to The Rose (Taiwanese Drama) on the basis of a subsequent talk page discussion, but it's apparent that there is no consensus to delete the article. NAC—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
This article is about the same subject as The Rose (Taiwanese Drama), which is an older article. I am proposing a deletion of the former so that the latter can be redirected into the "The Rose (TV series)" namespace to comply with the Manual of Style for article naming. Arsonal (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. JForget 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable person. Coverage, yes - coverage in one line in an article on confidence tricks in a non-notable blog. Ironholds (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Gary Wood (filmmaker). NW (Talk) 03:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A single-theatre film isn't particularly notable. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. consensus that he fails WP:N/and/or WP:POLITICIAN JForget 22:14, 6 September 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)) . |
Anonymous political figure in a vanishingly small party. Recently created by a editor who admits that he is a member of said party. Same editor silently removed my prod tag, so here we are Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the POLITICIAN tag as it didn't meet the criteria, sorry about that. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source for this pearl of wisdom? Troublemaker1949 (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? This is NOT a majority vote, it doesn't count anyway, so it's pretty pointless to do this. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, is not that not allowed, so sorry. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised Troublemaker1949s behaviout here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. per Snowball delete JForget 22:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer. Contested PROD. Prod reason was "Given the club's league level, it is unlikely that its players can be considered automatically notable. There is nothing here to indicate individual notability". This is still the case. The subject does get hits in Google News but it all seems to be local coverage. I don't think he meets WP:ATHLETE. DanielRigal (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It gets re-added, because Ghost Rider is the most famous police chase motorcyclist, and his videos are selling over the Internet and motorcycle shops. If you can point to another police chase video as more popular, then you can say its not Notable. But this is like saying UserX doesnt exist, because I dont personally know him. Notable in the field as given, is Notable. And its not a hoax. --IronWolve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.100.148 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per G4 by Orangemike. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ghost Rider (motorcycle stuntman)[edit]
Fails WP:Notability and WP:RS; possibly a hoax. This entire article is a collection of unverified rumors and tall tales, combined with references to a set of dubious YouTube videos. The subject is probably worthy of investigation by reputable media, but until that happens, Wikipedia has nothing to base an article on. --Dbratland (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Withdrawn per Mich. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A single outdoor concert in Nova Scotia, held August 2nd. This probably wasn't notable beforehand (see the comments on the talk page, from when this was still in user space), I don't see it getting any more notable after the fact. Hairhorn (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep It's notability is more about the fact that the Canadian Forces, Canada's military, put this concert on; it's never happened before. --24.222.189.203 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC) — 24.222.189.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
*Keep third party coverage is hard to find after-the-fact: the Chronicle Herald had three other stories on Rock Fest, but can't be seen online after seven days. More references are up. --24.222.189.203 (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC) — 24.222.189.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
*Keep This is the first at home Canadian Forces concert, and the first Chickenfoot concert, and there is going ot be a second one, and they have a number of noteable references. --24.222.129.22 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC) — 24.222.129.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first this looked like a hoax. However, searching without "Ozgen" reveals 1 result at Google Books, which the article is slightly lifted from, so this is probably true (Khan's father's name appears to turn up some results, as well). Regardless, this individual seems to be gravely non-notable besides coverage in one book. JamieS93 21:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is merely an advertisement. This website is not notable enough to have its own article. Paaerduag (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 22:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted multiple times as A7. Asserts one trivial and one mostly trivial mention--I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND, but a PROD would obviously be contested. Jclemens (talk)
The result was keep. JForget 22:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP, no major roles. Most significant role is a minor role in Degrassi: The Next Generation. Said character is not mentioned at all in the main article and earns all of three sentances in List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. No independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You agree with me that A.J. Saudin fails WP:GNG. The lack of sourcing for this WP:BLP means that it should be deleted, not kept. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that Wikipedia:ENT#Additional criteria states that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This means that whether or not WP:ENT should rescue an article that is deficient in sources rests with editorial judgment. I would argue to keep this article if there were reliable sources about this individual; however, there are none. When reliable news organizations start covering A.J. Saudin's roles, I would support this article's existence. I do not believe that a biography should remain on Wikipedia if there are absolutely no independent, reliable sources to extract biographical information from. Cunard (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to the "there are editors on wikipedia, who somehow feel that one article in three million is too significant, is too much, and will fervently fight to the last breath to make sure that article 300,045,134 is deleted." argument, this is irrelevant to this deletion debate. Your ad hominem attack is unwarranted. I am not the deletion-hungry person you portray me to be. If you have any issues with my deletion arguments, please discuss with me on my talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my response below to FeydHuxtable's WP:ITSNOTABLE vote for why Saudin's New York Times entry establishes that he fails WP:ENT and that none of his roles are significant. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please let FeydHuxtable answer my question. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no doubt that Saudin fails WP:ENT. As MichaelQSchmidt argued above, WP:GNG does not trump WP:ENT; however, when both WP:ENT and WP:GNG are not met, the biography should be deleted for completely failing Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (persons), which encompass both GNG and ENT. Cunard (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, your new tactic that he has to be listed higher in the pecking order in order for his participation to be significant is misleading, and itself has no foundation in guideline, policy, or precedent. Firstly, many production companies submit cast alphabetically. Secondly, actors who become part of cast later in a production often appear later down such lists than do those who were in a production at its outset... indeed cast who were in initial episodes and left after one or two appearances might often be listed above the others who followed or were in more episodes. There is no hard and fast rule about such, and it should not be assumed that there is. Often, its first-come, first-served.
Thank you for granting finally that the GNG does not trump other notability guidelines, however... and contary to you last pont above... both guidelines do not need to be met for notability to be shown. If one passes the GNG, one merits inclusion, even if failing other criteria. If one can meet the other criteria (in this case ENT), failure to also meet GNG is not the deathknell... specifically since the other criteria are there to be considered specifically when the GNG is not met. Having the article remain and grow over the course of time improves the encyclopedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His ranking in the character list is a good indication of how significant he is. If there are no sources about his roles, how else would you establish the significance of the his roles? Your first point: the character lists I listed above are not in alphabetical order. They are in order of importance. Your second point: your argument is pure guessing, so my response will also have to be pure guessing. If he were a significant character, wouldn't the production companies move his name to a more prominent position in the list?
I have provided evidence of how A.J. Saudin fails both GNG and ENT. Now will you provide some evidence of how he passes ENT? Your strongest argument is that he passes ENT because he has had recurring roles in TV shows. You are guessing that these roles are significant. I am not guessing. The statistics I have linked to above indicate that his roles have been very minor. Cunard (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Schmidt, thank you for saving this article from the digital dustbin. Good luck in the other deletion debates you are currently participating in. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he meets criteria, and I watch Degrassi: The Next Generation, and his role on Degrassi is a Main Role, he is a regular character too, I've seen him in the opening credits. GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No particular assertion of notability for this minor league baseball player. Being involved in a trade does not make you notable. Wikipedia is not a scouting website - He may not be a shortstop long-term, but he's more than athletic enough to handle a switch. ?? A 34th-round draft pick who is currently bouncing around the minors doesn't exactly rise to the level of, say, Stephen Strasburg, who is notable even if he never reaches the majors. The enumeration of his minor league clubs in the infobox shows a little diligence, but it's nothing anyone's gonna care about if he makes the majors, and if he doesn't, he's not notable. Merge to Oakland Athletics minor league players at the absolute most, but I personally wouldn't support that. Declined speedy. Nosleep break my slumber 18:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about similarly non-notable minor league players (this is the first of likely very many AFD bundles forthcoming from me on minor league baseball players). Again, at most merge to Foo minor league players, but I don't find it necessary to do that. Nosleep break my slumber 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Most minor league players won't reach the majors. That's just a fact. Of course many of the 300 or so articles I identified are better off being merged. Maybe as many as half; I won't nominate them here. But do you really think we need an article like, say, Theodis Bowe, which currently is all about his high school days, when there's realistically next to no chance that he'll make the majors? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 22:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasons as above. They are notable, it's not like they don't do anything. They're professional baseball players as much as Ken Griffey, Jr., or Albert Pujols even though they haven't reached the same level or have the same abilities. If you were to delete these players you should delete any player who's never been on a 40-man roster, or is that not notable enough for you? Please see: Wikipedia:Notability. I would say professional baseball players get coverage, at any level. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete G6 by user Nev1, non admin closure.Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hellphone (disambiguation)[edit]
unneeded disambiguation, only one blue link. previously deleted by prod so can't use that again Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. - No consensus for deletion JForget 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization. Almost entirely sourced from its own publications. There is one article from a local university paper and passing mention in two articles on goskagit.com. Though a google news search turns up lots of hits ([45] I looked at 20 (mainly from the first few pages) and found only one mention that wasn't a comment posted by a reader. That one was another passing mention. I did not find any in-depth look at the organization by a substantial news source. The article has been deleted at AfDd twice before under the name Borgen Project - 1st nom; 2nd nom. SiobhanHansa 09:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis article obviously means something to quite a few people - the fact that they have resurrected the article twice demonstrates this. Non-profit organizations need to be able to keep their constituencies informed; large corporations do this with advertising. It is my opinion that wikipedia should not base inclusion on whether newspapers, who are more concerned with making enough money to survive rather than reporting news, find a subject to be worth covering. Wikipedia, with no need to "sell" itself and certainly no lack of space, should embrace this organization and the important work that they are doing.Waylando91 (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Editors advocating deletion claimed only deficiencies in the current article, and failed to show how any future article would not meet inclusion criteria. See also WP:PROBLEMS, WP:DEADLINE. Skomorokh 12:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Firm with questionable notability. Of the five references, two are trivial, and the other three are primary. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not have sources; the subject is not covered in reliable sources; questionable notability. Contested WP:PROD without explanation. Bluemask (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Maxwell Hutchinson. feel free to merge any content if necessary JForget 21:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However noble, I don't think this group is notable. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reliable sourcing for this article at all, let alone significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. It was tagged for notability nearly a year ago. Bongomatic 13:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to The Frances Bardsley School for Girls. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organisation set up by students - fails WP:ORG. They've got letters from heads of political parties? Wow, well done. When I was seventeen my politics class wrote off to every major political figure with requests for a visit - the fact that they got their secretary to reply doesn't mean they're supporting my venture. Ironholds (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local cable show. Also has an online presence, but its notability online is not established. References establish nothing more than local notability. Hairhorn (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]