The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @053 · 00:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non indication of notability for this artist. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. everyone seems to agree on this one DGG (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NN ice hockey player TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable professor. Astronomy who doesn't even have an observatory anymore. Ricky28618 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep, disruptive vandalism from indef-blocked user. Horologium (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just an attack piece. Insufficiently sourced (newspapers are not enough for accusations of this type). Ricky28618 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ram Manohar Lohia. Already redirected by Dlohcierekim. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a nonsense attack page. I can't make heads or tails of this one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Tan | 39 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film Ricky28618 (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I originally tagged this with PROD giving reason that the subject fails both WP:NOTE & WP:ATHLETE The reason I did this was that there were no references provided to confirm that the player had played fully professionally or was of note for some other reason, and that I could find none when I searched for him on Google. The PROD was removed by the author of the article, so I have elevated it to AfD. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close, withdrawn.
Though expanded since last deletion, I still don't see notability or WP:RS. Dlohcierekim 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @504 · 11:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @504 · 11:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non-existent dispute. There are people and organisations who either don't like the term "British Isles" or who avoid its use. Such people and organisations are not however, in dispute with any other people or organisations. The absence of a dispute is clear from the fact that there are few, if any, references to it apart from on Wikipedia itself. The article serves as little more than a directory of people and organisations who object to the term. The article is, in essence, a POV fork from British Isles and British Isles (terminology). The article is being used as a vehicle to push a political POV. The dispute is imaginary, residing in the minds of Wikipedia editors. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @505 · 11:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
utterly non-notable. zero signs of significance, generic glamour model with generic pseudonym. Not even a Penthouse Pet, just a "feature" model. Virtually all "references" go to advertising pages for erotica sites failing WP:RS, often not mentioning article subject's name. My original prod removed without explanation by IP anon which has no other edit history. Article now being subjected to repeated spam insertions, completely unsourced, by user self-identifying as article subject and by affiliated SPAs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike, CSD A7 A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable subject which claims to be internet celebrity. Most probably self promotion. Speedy and Prod removed by an IP which must be sock puppet of the creator of this article. Hitro 18:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There is no agreement as to whether or not the subject is notable, and there are too many comments to justify relisting again, hence this closure. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an unsuccessful past political candidate, does not, in my opinion, meet the suggestions for established notability as outlined at WP:POLITICIAN. While the subject seems to have had an interesting life thus far, I don't believe this autobiography provides sufficient evidence of notability. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @505 · 11:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a "small indie game development company" whose first game has yet to be released. It's unlikely that a company in this situation will be notable, and I don't think this one is. The first reference is a press release, the second gives only the name and "No Description Available". Of the external links, #1 and 3 are the company's own, #2 gives a 3-line description, #4 - 6 don't mention it as far as I can see. There are a fair number of Ghits, but all that I looked at have been trivial references, or press releases along the lines of "Mangled Eye Studios announces a preorder program for Dark Salvation". I don't see the substantial independent comment required for notability. If their game takes off, they may become notable, but we are not here to help publicise it in advance. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student organization with no assertion of notability apart from incorrectly-assumed inherited notability of Ivy League; no substantial coverage by reliable third party sources [1]; variety of issues with inappropriate unencyclopedic tone and general self-congratulatory advertising-cruft Madcoverboy (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. After reading through the discussion, I can find no agreement as to whether to crash meets WP:AIRCRASH. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable military accident, no civil casualties, nothing to show it is any more than just another military training exercise accident which is not unusual. Was probably news is 2007 but their appears to be no further reports or recommendations MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @505 · 11:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written like an advert, no citations, references, no attempt to establish notability
The result was merge to Cumbric language. It is already mentioned there, so a merge/redirect is a more practical option than deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've classified this as an organisation, although you could argue the article is about the 'network' or website. I can find no evidence of notability, just some blogs, websites, etc. Not only that, I can find no evidence for a 'rediscovery' or even a discovery of Cumbric manuscripts. If that had actually happened, there would be plenty of evidence for such a momentous discovery. What we seem to have here is a small group of enthusiasts (or at least one) trying to reconstruct a language for which we have no records for (with no evidence for his alleged rediscovery I'm discounting the claim for the moment). Maybe at some point it will become notable, but until then we should not be giving it publicity. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original version has "alleged" or "believed" in every sentence: current version reports alleged events as facts. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP per ChildOfMidnight. Just because it may not have actually happened doesn't mean it's not notable. Most of the arguments against it right now are arguments for improvement, not deletion. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @971 · 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:NOTNEWS--"Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. " This was an advertising campaign that received a brief attention from the news media in the Spring of 2009. However, the Barack Obama fly swatting incident received more news coverage. See also WP:Recentism and Wikipedia:News articles. OfficeGirl (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essay, more suitable for a blog posting. Sigma 7 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @505 · 11:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely a re-creation of the previously deleted list, this suffers the same issues as that deleted list, along with the various other lists of clichés that have been deleted. Specifically, what constitutes a cliché is irredeemably marred by POV and OR concerns. Otto4711 (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (X! · talk) · @971 · 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged as a speedy. Due to the length and the presence of numerous references, I believe a fuller discussion here is warranted. The subject, an attorney, does not appear to be notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DID YOU NOT READ HIS NOTABLE CLIENTS? HE IS EVEN ADVISING MICHAEL JACKSON'S FAMILY[13] It is clear that the delete comment is completely unwarranted. Most of the notable clients are backed with supporting cites. Actually read the references, and you will see that Mr. Chesnoff is one of the most accomplished defense attorneys in the country. Do you think all those major news sites have it wrong too? I think not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
CLICK ON ANY OF THESE LINKS: I don't have time to respond to the false statment that this article is not backed by evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.martindale.com/Chesnoff-Schonfeld-A-Professional/1067665-law-firm-office.htm]
[14]q=cache:GU_E3dZYhqIJ:www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/19/copperfield.probe/index.html+chesnoff+copperfield+cnn&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [15] [16] [17] ^ url=http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:9tUJpJIcuO8J:www.kocorner.com/boxing/category/Tyson-DUI-Case/+chesnoff+mike+tyson&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ^ http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06pl3jD8tf4yg/610x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.daylife.com/photo/06pl3jD8tf4yg&usg=__aSbRSAraiOanOsEkT8HveluZvBg=&h=416&w=610&sz=44&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=lkkrZvqBY4MlPM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dchesnoff%2Bmike%2Btyson%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGIH_enUS258US259%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1 ^ url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/22/lkl.01.html ^ url=http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/4908 ^ http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2008/12/1205_suge_ex_tmz_01-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tmz.com/tag/David%2BChesnoff/&usg=__w2WJXY-Y77h8JsWJlYt1jSrqpzI=&h=300&w=274&sz=27&hl=en&start=10&um=1&tbnid=SiEER2bsiCGhqM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddavid%2Bchesnoff%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGIH_enUS258US259%26um%3D1 ^ url=http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pokerroad.com/pokerazzi/5-16-08/phil_ivey_david_chesnoff.png&imgrefurl=http://www.pokerroad.com/pokerazzi/5-16-08/&usg=__0nmDlOWGGiG8ra755c03Z6be600=&h=158&w=185&sz=43&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=al1Ojw5TUbV6NM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddavid%2Bchesnoff%2Bivey%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGIH_enUS258US259%26um%3D1 ^ http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/2744-poker-pro-shawn-sheikhan-facing-deportation-to-iran ^ url= http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/05/neb-philanthropist-faces-vegas-casino-debt-charge ^ url=http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/08/if-youre-in-las-vegas-and-in-trouble-call-david-chesnoff/ ^ url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4377933.stm ^ ur=http://www.annadavid.com/articles/chesnoff.html ^ url=http://www.martindale.com/Chesnoff-Schonfeld-A-Professional/1067665-law-firm-office.htm Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chesnoff"
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]
This is an irrebuttable presumption of the notability. This is not temporary notibility as he has contributed significantly to the legal field for over 25 years
[18] Also there is verified evidence, as required
02:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. A redirect can be created after deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being a wife of someone famous doesn't make herself notable Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Subject is non-notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Razakel19 (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable also seems to be written like a news article. Irunongames • play 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete A7 by J.delanoy at 20:36, 4 July 2009. Non-admin closure SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTE Rmosler | ● 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 (copyright violation of this news article. I would have !voted to keep — I'm pretty sure that political secretary for the PM of Malaysia is enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN — but we need an independently written article, not a copy-and-paste job. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essay form and may likely fail WP:NOTE Rmosler | ● 14:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike CSD A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Band appears to be either a hoax or fail WP:MUSIC. No GHITs or GNEWS hits for group and individuals listed in article. Moved to AfD because CSD removed by apparent SPA. ttonyb1 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (and none of the proposed references proposed at the end possibly come near meeting the RS requirement). DGG (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable trade show/conference, fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the Sources I had here to Discussion Page. Itnet7 (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The keeps didn't adequately address the issues with the sources that the deletes had. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally notable website, written as an advert by the publisher, Bmckim (talk · contribs). The article has been in pretty much this state since it was created in June 2007 and is still an orphan except for the publisher inserting links about himself. Toddst1 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep No indication that nominator has followed all the preliminary alternatives to deletion. -- TheGriefer (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: Doing a search via McAfee, I learned that ten (10) other wikipedia entries link to the SHECKYmagazine.com entry. (Not sure how McAfee determines this, but I just thought I'd throw it out there, as some folks say that a lack of other entries pointing to the entry in question is a sign of illegitimacy. And, conversely, ten other entries pointing to the entry in question might contribute to the legitimacy of the entry in question.) Full disclosure: I put it up there in the first place, so I am naturally biased.
70.18.178.158 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Jade Ewen. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient number of releases for a separate discography, content may be returned to Jade Ewen without unduly increasing its size. Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dismally fails WP:ATHLETE, we don't create articles for junior sportspeople. sounds like his parents wrote this article. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3 hoax, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Search yields nothing regarding this, highly unlikely a television series with such prolific developers would sit for several months with only a handful of edits and not be linked to by any others articles whatsoever. It's a hoax alright, just not a blatant enough one for CSD. treelo radda 12:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 18:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. nothing in google news search[29]. LibStar (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @972 · 22:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this book is notable, because I cannot find "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent" per Wikipedia:Notability_(books). Please notice, this is an ebook and not printed (AFAI can tell). Hence there is no ISBN, which is a threshold requirement of the notability guideline. 龗 (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. hardly any third party coverage [30]. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Club Penguin. (X! · talk) · @972 · 22:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Book publishers are generally pretty notable but I'm having problems finding any references to this one outside of self published resources such as blogs or wikis. Club Penguin book list linked from the article shows either Grosset & Dunlap or Ladybird as the publisher. RadioFan (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - the information should probably be covered in the league season article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The articles contain an indiscriminate collection of information, thus violating WP:NOT#IINFO. The single matches listed in this article have limited (if any) notability, thus violating WP:NOT#STATS and WP:N. The articles do not cite any sources, thus failing WP:V. Finally, the results are sufficiently displayed through an results table within the respective main articles. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar issues:
One of reason i would keep is why have some pages linked to clubs for seasons such as [[33]], and the rest of the clubs. Whats the difference? We have many pages for individual clubs and 5 0r 6 pages for a whole country.
On the point about merging pages, well thats just a joke, as that comment is by someone who clearly doesn't know the makeup of Thai football. Each league is an entity of its own.Druryfire (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Given the age of the article and the larger issues that appear to be ongoing it was probably a bad idea to bring this to AfD at this time. I will make no determination as to what should happen to this article for now; it appears to be in the process of improvement (again, as part of a larger issue than just this article). Whether it ultimately winds up being merged elsewhere, made a redirect, simply deleted or survive as a standalone article I do not know and I cannot say at this juncture, but I urge all involved to allow the article building/discussion process to continue before throwing this one at AfD again. Shereth 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) there are already articles deformation (engineering) and deformation (mechanics) waiting for being merged, we hardly need a third, disconnected article. (2) unencyclopedic. (3) this is a one-man show and likely to remain so. (4) the material inserted here has previously been deleted from other pages, see the ongoing discussion on Talk:Glass Transition.
Folks, you call it "technical" because you think it's your fault if you don't understand it. Please understand: there is nothing to be understood in this text. Understanding means making connections. If you don't see connections between subsequent paragraphs, or between paragraphs and the heading of the article, then it is the author's fault, not yours.
Actually, I think we can handle this issue by purely formal criteria: this article is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the block of another article. This for itself should be reason enough for speedy deletion.
But if you want to judge this article by its actual merit, then please use your capacity of judgement, or try to attract more editors to this debate who are capable of forming their own judgement. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article here merely provides a brief introduction to the subject matter (albiet a very good one). Alternatively, the purpose of this article is to expand on the introductory discussion in order to describe the mechanisms responsibile for the mechanical behavior of both crystalline and non-crystalline materials. No where in the introductory article are microstructural defects even mentioned -- much less the influence of temperature and loading on their local and/or long-range mobility.
Without a discussion of the basic work that has been done in order to illustrate these concepts and measure them quantitatively in the laboratory, we are merely avoiding the real core and essence of the subject matter. Why not at least give it a chance ? Is it really so absolutely impossible to understand the work of these authors in summary ? Much of it is taught in undergraduate classrooms in quality programs in Ceramics, Metallurgy and Materials Science Engineering. And yet you insist on its comprehensive "inaccessibility". I am certainly no genius, and I don't think so. Can you read all of the articles that are published in straight physics ? Curious.... -- logger9 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3 hoax, second hoax by same author. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable. A reasonable internet search turns up nothing that doesn't already reference this article. Probably a hoax. Sarilox (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, delete and send content to Wiktionary. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edited article to better reflect the true purpouse - the possibility of non-existent words passing into existence whilst citing the origins of this argument, that is, the word worryment. JonMoore87 (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @146 · 02:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The show has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore fails Wikipedia:Notability. Only results on Google are Facebook and Wikipedia. (I'm taking this to AfD instead of PROD because there may be language or transcription issues that are fouling up my search.) TheLeftorium 10:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted (G3) by NawlinWiki. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this is notable fiction, or really evidence that this is not purely original. Delete per WP:NOT, WP:OR. Moved from prod. TeaDrinker (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No reliable secondary sources to indicate notability. Peer reviews and so forth should be collected before a Wikipedia article can be created. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable cosmological theory -- basically a summary of a single scientific paper written in 1997 in Brazil. No independent sources; no indication that this theory is notable, or that anyone other than its author has ever heard of it. Seems like original research. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not least pretty clear because, as de:Benutzer:Werner.landgraf, de:Benutzer:193.248.74.133, de:Benutzer:193.250.208.137 and de:Benutzer:80.9.31.10, you were making similar arguments in the German Wikipedia, back in January 2006, when de:Wirkungs-Welt-Modell came up for deletion over there (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/1. Januar 2006), and signing yourself "wl" there, too (as well as speaking in the first person about "my theory").
What was stated to you then by the German Wikipedia editors holds equally over here in the English Wikipedia: A single, unpublished, monograph by you that has not been subjected to proper academic peer review is not an acceptable source. Nor is it acceptable for you to be using either the English or German Wikipedias to promote your own inventions that have yet to be acknowledged and accepted by the world at large. The English Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:No original research policy, too.
And if you start ranting about conspiracies of Jews and drug addicts to keep your ideas from the world, like you did over there, your editing privileges will rapidly vanish as will this article. Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The key point here is that notability does not require us to delete content completely. What it tells us is that non-notable topics shouldn't have their own articles.
There's a tension between WP:N and WP:PRESERVE that occurs when a subject is verifiable but not notable, which we can only resolve by merging the disputed content to a parent article. Also, it doesn't matter whether this model is true. What matters is whether it's sourced. (By analogy, Wikipedia quite rightly has an article on Bigfoot).
In this case, I would recommend a heavy trim when the merge is implemented; I feel it merits a paragraph or so.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, it will not help you to imply that other editors are speaking in bad faith (for example, "I'm glad to see that there are objective persons" implies that the preceding comments are not objective). This will tend to harden their hearts against you when you would be better advised to either persuade them to change their opinion, or refute their arguments (as I have done above). It will also not endear you to the sysop (senior person) who closes this debate, who will certainly disregard logical fallacies and rhetoric in favour of a dispassionate analysis of the merits of the arguments presented.
Second, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an encyclopaedia.
Third, it is not usually a good idea to respond to every single person who disagrees with you.
Fourth (and rather less importantly), there are hundreds of things called "wiki", including some for-profit enterprises, and abbreviating as "wiki" is ambiguous. (Among experienced editors it would be seen as gauche.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the work is published, not in a review but in the explained form. The notary service of the BN register it, according to international copyright conventions, make it open for be consulted by anybody, divulge the list of the works, send a certain number of copies to other libraries, so that any interested person can go there and read the work. And after this also Iself sent copies to several institutes. For me, that is no worser publication than f.ex. in the old times a book publication, often paied by the author, or nowadays an e-book or web page. All this is publication, because it makes public a before unknown, secret contens, for an illimited number of persons whoever has interest to read it. With another opinion, one would justify other people / concurrent cientists read these works and publish them under their own name (so that, here, already the copyright protection makes more reliable/secure the publication). Alias, the librarie's department of deposition of elsewhere published works is another. What I really can do, is to put the work online - what's however no condition for 'published' or for a 'reliable wiki source', as most works are not online. -- I try to stop now to answer to all posts, as suggested by the moderator, and wait what they decide. wl 90.31.119.104 (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.119.104 (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @055 · 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No coverage in reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (X! · talk) · @972 · 22:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to consist of original research. "Work aversion disorder" isn't a recognized medical condition, and there only seems to be one Google result that isn't directly related to this Wikipedia article. Furthermore, although there are many citations, they seem to simply be talking about unwillingness to work, and don't use the word "disorder" - an apparent violation of WP:SYN. CronoDAS (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @055 · 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a team that is of any particular note, non-professional. I originally tagged this for PROD due to lack of references that establish notability, but the tag was removed. No new references have been added. Trevor Marron (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. In spite of the attempts to source it the consensus here indicates that the subject is insufficiently notable to merit inclusion. Shereth 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subdivision, utterly identical to every other affluent subdivision in every other suburb of every other city. PROD proposed sometime last year but removed and forgotten. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. At this point, after 2 weeks, there seems to be consensus the article is improvable & that improvement has already begun DGG (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a lot of work went into this, so I would say to come up with this falls under both WP:IINFO and WP:OR. It's just a list of artists charting on miscellaneous Billboard charts. Wolfer68 (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not remove the entire article. It's not some random or indiscriminate listing of artists' charting hits. I don't see it any more trivial than information presented in these other listings:
We can trim the 300+ artist list to 200 or so and make it more manageable.--Don1962 (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article just needs better organization. It's obvious time was spent and is very resourceful for modern music. The other list shows artist with many who stop making music. This list shows artist who are currently recording and are the most successful modern artist. I don't think it should be deleted at all; just better organized.Forever Kenny (talk)
I've started adding references and cleaned up columns.--Don1962 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see how this information isn't found in one place online, as serves as a listing of chart achievements. I note how Michael Jackson is called "the King of Pop." Yet, his sister has had more charting hits. And in terms of number of hits (not sales, which is dealt with in numerous other Wiki pages) MJ is nowhere near the top of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.3.181 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @055 · 00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lack of significant coverage of actual bilateral relations [41], 1st article does mention a foreign minister visit but not enough for an article. also Romanian ministers have attended EU meetings in Luxembourg but that in itself was for the EU and not Luxembourg-Romania relations. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @055 · 00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is seriously lacking for this article. It's almost borderline spam as the only two refs given are about a company by the name of Beauty Rock records. Can't find reliable third party refs and Google only returns hits about the company and some band by the same name. Was prodded, but contested, so it comes here. t'shaelchat 04:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard people use the term beauty rock before! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theprofessorshun (talk • contribs) 16:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAgain, notability is so subjective that you cannot objectively tell me that this article should not be included. What one person views as notable, another person does not. I have given you ample references for this article. If this was spam, I would not be conversing with you about the topic and it is obviously not advertisement. What would be the subject that is being advertised? I would hardly call a reference an advertisement. Wikipedia is about the spread of information and ideas. It is user based so why should a user-drafted article be considered for deletion just because you've never heard of the term before? Wikipedia is used for the expansion of knowledge, not hard and fast "facts" (find a college or university that would accept it on a research paper and I'll gladly take this article down if it's that important to you). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs)
Comment Also, thanks for slowing down my access to wikipedia remarkably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs)
I wrote both articles. Thank you. Both are original works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shide48 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT! You took off all my references so obviously there aren't going to be any independent mentions. I went through all the trouble of typing out the references and you just delete them without asking me just because you thought they weren't good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.147.56 (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self promotional BLP article, wasn't able to verify that any of his publications are notable under WP:BK, nor the assertion that his blog was "widely acclaimed", and in which case he fails WP:BLP1E as his only other claim to notability was serving as an assistant editor for DJ Spooky's book - 2 ... says you, says me 03:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 16:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @054 · 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article about earthquakes of magnitude 2.5-3.0 is surely non-notable, no matter where the location. RapidR (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable second or third party sources. Article was orginally written as self-promotion and to promote company though article has been revised. Other than being the third wife to a Qatar Prince, she has nothing notable. The user that created the article has done nothing further on wiki so it's questionable. This does not fall in the guidelines of WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Tree Karma (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:POLITICIAN, having never won an election (or finished higher than fourth, according to Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke). Google searches for both Gord Scott and Gordon S. McLeod (his full name according to Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke election results) turn up nothing about the politician. There don't seem to be any news sources either (which there almost certainly would be for a notable politician); both Google News and news archive searches turn up nothing relevant for Gordon McLeod or Gord Scott, so it looks like this fails WP:GNG as well. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This event involved an aircraft touching down on a taxiway. There were no injuries, no damage, and everything was all right. WP:NOT#NEWS applies. Quoting the only working reference, the MSNBC article: "Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, for instance, had three such landings over a recent four-year span" If this same scenario happened three times at one airport over a four year span, one can see that this happens more than one might think. Therefore, I simply don't think this is that notable. Tavix | Talk 18:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local program. Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Graffiti terminology. (X! · talk) · @054 · 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Graffiti terminology. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Do we really need an article on blocks of wood nail on posts? Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-merge per Jfire and make it stick. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. —harej (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage. Fails WP:N. Since the band is only barely notable because of having had Maynard James Keenan as a member, their releases do not deserve individual articles. Conical Johnson (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Rcurtis, but you should have used the full quote; "(Criteria for notability...) Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Maynard James Keenan has been in three notable ensembles. Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty does have enough notability to have an article.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declined A7, no real assertion of notability or sources. A search on GNews [52] turns up an identical press release reprinted on several websites, a few press releases in Spanish and not much else. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear notable, and reads in part like an ad. The press releases are mostly clones of each other. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Project has been cancelled, and is non-notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, likely by sockpuppet. (I hadn't seen the contested prod when I prodded it; my prod was removed by a sock who templated me).
Anyhow, enough context. Focusing on the content. This is a non-notable proposed building (wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Lacks reliable sources to establish notability. Delete without prejudice, it can be recreated if sources are established (or it breaks ground). tedder (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Small un-notable page. Would be better merged with Kissy Sell Out Ronhjones (Talk) 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. Leave me a note if he makes his debut and I'll restore. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Youth player fails WP:ATHLETE. recently signed professional contract, but consensus is that alone is not enough. Most references supplied are from clubs own website - which of course mentions their own players, and blogs which are largely opinion, not notable sources. no news sources from mainstream media. --ClubOranjeT 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included
Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG, little third party coverage [57] LibStar (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Subject is sufficiently notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unorphaned and no sign of any external links. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (X! · talk) · @054 · 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. I believe that the article lacks the notability to have a page to itself, as it consists of a description followed by its use in plot in 4 episodes, which should be covered in the page List of Gargoyles episodes. All the contents of this page could be covered elsewhere on other existing pages. Taelus (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a software product that provides no sources to indicate notability. A search shows lots of download links but no reviews or coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Band fails WP:BAND. All albums are self-produced. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This game has not received any significant coverage in reliable, published sources, and therefore does not pass the general notability guideline. No other indication of importance. I am aware of several press releases ([58][59][60], etc) which do not aid WP:N. No reviews on the usual reliable websites. Marasmusine (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Notability, the topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content—which on this case, the game itself meets the criteria outlined in the web content since it is already being reviewed on some mmorpg reviewer websites. It just needs some improvements on editing—including which reliable sources that the information has been taken. We, editor, the fiesta fans—most of us not even in college yet—are trying to do our best to improve the article, and still learning how to write a good article. It does not need to be deleted. Don’t demolish the house while it’s still being built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesarnof (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Khatami had dropped out by the time of the election - notice how the article has barely been updated in months. He initially said he was planning to run, but dropped out after five weeks. [61], [62], [63]. Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (X! · talk) · @054 · 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heavily promotional in tone. No notability. Henry S. Jacobs Camp, the more proper pagename for this article, was merge/redirected a few years ago when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/URJ Camp George concluded that the camp ws not notable. Previous WP:CSD#G11 speedy on this article was declined based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Yavneh (2nd nomination) as precedent, but that doesn't seem to relate to the blatant ad tone. Also, the Camp George AfD is more closely related to the page at hand and slightly more recent...seems better precedent to me. I was about to WP:CSD#G4 this until I saw that declined-speedy in the history, but this article here really is nearly a clone of the better-named one prior to merge. DMacks (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Non-notable hybrid. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable orchid hybrid. Do not be fooled by the large-looking article: virtually everything there is just overly-generic statements that cover all of Paphiopedilum. Circeus (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]