The result was delete. SNOW Tone 11:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic list of WP:TRIVIA. Previously prodded, but the article creator removed the prod template with the rationale that "This information at it not easily available. Information gathered by comparing the Nobel Winners list at the Nobelprize.org with Wikipedia countries by population." (It isn't easily available because it's about as needed as "List of actors who never won an Academy Award" or "List of Presidents of the United States who never made a state visit to Luxembourg", and the information-gathering method flies right in the face of WP:NOR. But I digress.) In truth, I'd love to speedy this as patently unnecessary, but it doesn't fit any speedy criterion that I can see. But it's still a no-brainer delete, methinks. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I declined a speedy deletion on this but he fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate for political office. Gets some local news mentions in campaign coverage. As do most candidates. Nothing biographical to meet WP:BIO. Mkativerata (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Article previously speedily deleted back in 2006. Since then, they have won a minor local award, but otherwise have escaped major notice. Current article claims tenuous links to other notable acts but those are unreferenced and notability is not inherited anyway. A search reveals plenty of links to MP3/video sites and social networking sites, but nothing substantial in reliable sources. Fails WP:BAND. Astronaut (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax (G3). Mkativerata (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a hoax, a search reveals no relevant hits. A quick search of recent transfers shows no one of that or similar name. Quasihuman (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
completely fails to show any semblance of notability, with no evidence it passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either a hoax or a non-notable BLP. Totally unsourced, only substantial claim in the text is impossible, and this supposedly pioneering biologist appears never to have been named in any papers or books. Only google hits are for this article, copies of it, and links to it. bobrayner (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a somewhat complex AFD; basically, I want to delete this article but, as it is big and well established, I think it probably needs discussion.
Recently I have been working extensively on digital forensics topics and this is one of the articles that falls under it's umbrella.
The article was created in 2005 with the edit summary IF: a new field of research - in my searches for references (and personal knowledge of the field) I can find no real sourcing for this particular area of study.
The main reference I can find is this journal. After reading a few of the publications it seems that IF, in this sense, is simply used as a synonym for computer forensics and for digital forensics in general. A Google scholar search and a dig through Athens pulls up no reasonable citations to support this as a separate field.
Finally; the content that exists is mostly "fluff" - as best I can make out this is a very broad concept of "computer forensics as applied to human actions". Sourcing this is a nightmare. Very little of the content can be adequately sourced for merging into other articles.
Based on the above I would like to delete the article to
Sorry for the lengthy rationale :) Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Connor (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Add info about Higgs career and education. Establish credentials as a major business leader in New Brunswick - director of Canaport LNG, a very important NB landmark.
The result was delete. I have discared every spa vote. This leaves the argument that there are sources and this swayed one delete to a keep but there has been a decent analysis of the sources and the argument that they do not count as RSs for notability appears well founded and has not been challenged by any experienced editor. The policy based consensus from experienced editors is that this is not properly sourced so the counsensus is clear Spartaz Humbug! 07:05, 28 August 2010 (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)) . |
Contested prod, by the creator, with no improvement to the article. Original prod reason - No evidence that the publication, as opposed to one of the entries, is in any way notable. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS request for deletion (2010082010006879) and no particularly good reason to keep it; those competitions that he's won have been minor, and the sources barely cover WP:BIO's requirements. I'm particularly leery about the reliability of at least one source because it was written by the guy who wrote the article. Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable filmaker fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Lede says she is a filmmaker but has no notable film credits whatsoever. Only sources are Sallyport, her college mag, and ZAMI, a non-RS website. No significant coverage, no multiple sources. First AfD was no consensus. I speculate the voters found her to be "promising." Well, more than a year later and... nothing. I regret AfDing a fellow Bruin, but we're building an encyclopedia, not a yearbook. Lionel (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unclear notability: as the article says - "somewhat popular in the underground scene" Melaen (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unclear notability Melaen (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Tone 11:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax. No refs, no IMDb page, no Fashion Model Directory page; official site link goes nowhere and a G-search offers nothing. Furthermore, several of the modeling claims are clearly false, as this person has never been a Victoria's Secret Angel or Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue covermodel and has never appeared on any Forbes earnings lists, let alone topped them year after year. Mbinebri talk ← 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
website with 2500 - 3000 hits monthly as stated in the article...? that seem scarcely notable Melaen (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dubious notability Melaen (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep I withdraw this nomination Martyst111 (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it notable? there's no link to main organization. Martyst111 (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found the organization article. It's called French Syndicate of Cinema Critics. I merged ALL the content of the two articles and from French wiki there as a user, called East of Borschov, suggested . These articles are not needed now because the same content is already in French Syndicate of Cinema Critics now--Martyst111 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Primary contributor has the same username as the record company that represents this individual, so possible COI is at play. All of the sources and external links are either self-published material or links to user-submitted information (ie: urban dictionary). No notability has been established. nsaum75¡שיחת! 18:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. References and external links are self-made profile pages on myspace, twitter, etc..Also appears that the record label has a wikipedia account (User:MangledMedia) that has made substantial contributions and/or created this page. nsaum75¡שיחת! 18:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Subject clearly notable but the argument that this is a synthesis and therefore original research has not been refuted. Therefore this may be recreated from scratch but the advice from the discussion is to look at a wider article or include this into another subject as sourcing for a specific article of this type is clearly difficult Spartaz Humbug! 07:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is factually incorrect. The author combined data from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. WP:SYNTHESIS applies here. Vipinhari || talk 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Ascton (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:BAND. Provided refs are just reviews of their CD, no actual articles ABOUT the band. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See talk page for discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJeems (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Radioscope
MrJeems - talk - contributions 15:40, 13 August 2010 (+12 GMT)
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to fail WP:BIO. There has been previous discussion on the article talk page, two years ago, about the lack of notability evidence coming to little conclusion. His work has been published, but there is little mention in Google Books and no mention at all in Google News. There are some fansite discussions and the odd website interview but nothing showing significant impact, international recognition or significant awards. Fæ (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep all. —fetch·comms 00:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:
All appear to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked harder now (00:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)), and the article is now a sourced stub with some history of the original formation of the organization, and some sources in the further reading section that could be used for further expansion.
Thank you all for your contributions. I also created pages for the following state conventions which have been deleted. If you could advocate their restoration I would be very pleased.
State Convention of Baptist in Indiana Kansas-Nebraska Convention of Southern Baptists Baptist State Convention of Michigan Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention Mississippi Baptist Convention Board Nevada Baptist Convention Baptist Convention of New England Baptist Convention of New Mexico Baptist State Convention of North Carolina Northwest Baptist Convention Baptist Convention of Pennsylvania/South Jersey Toverton28 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)toverton28[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER there is not yet enough confirmed info on this album. This could have been a simple PROD but based on experience with "upcoming" albums in this genre, I bet it would be removed without comment. Also, the fact that the singles already have lives of their own is irrelevant when the album is not yet a reality. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hej jeg hedder kalle med stort K
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non-notable software product; article written by its developer. I have not found coverage beyond the brief mention here. Haakon (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) at 13:33, 21 August 2010 per A7. Non-admin closure Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a web-published comic fails the WP:WEB guidelines for notability as well as the general guidance. Searching Google and GNews reveals nothing of significance. The comic appears fairly newly created so there may be mileage in an article if it wins some awards or gets published via a recognized notable publisher; however there seems little prospect of notability (in a Wikipedia sense) being addressed in reliable independent sources in the near future. PROD removed so raising for AFD. Fæ (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted (CSD A7) by RHaworth. NAC. Cliff smith talk 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted and then restored after I read the talk-- brought assertion of significance over to article. Nothing at BillBoard or Allmusic, however, leads me to believe meets WP:BAND. Not able to locate significant coverage in reliable, 3rd party sources to show does meet WP:Band. Dlohcierekim 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This is an unlikely redirect target so.... Spartaz Humbug! 07:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page consists mainly of Youtube links and is otherwise redundant to Association football tactics and skills. I wouldn't mind a redirect but the current article is useless in encyclopedic terms. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable relevance. Nothing but an infodump of various trips that the Obamas took. Seems like an unnecessary list. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an author of an organisational process improvement model called "flawless execution". I can find press releases and mentions, but not substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains nothing resembling a reliable source regarding this organization. Prior nomination seems to have been a misfire. bd2412 T 15:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No notability for this product given to warrant it having it's own page. Drivenapart (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —fetch·comms 00:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell the central thesis of this article is bunk (that there is an school of 'unbelief' that has developed since the 18th century) and it's all original research on that basis. Would be more suited to a blog. We are not a publisher of original research. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*keep. I had some doubt because the article is a little pletoric and confused in some its parts. Now I decided to maintain, but it is to be improved. --Baboshed (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
*Keep. --Londers (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep I should prefer the initial definition of 217.202 but the article is however good and unbelief is an important concept both philosophically and religiously. Frankly, I don't understand certain will to delete cultural article which make wikipedia better and more complete. --3manol (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This town councillor fails WP:POLITICIAN as he is only a local official. The question is whether or not he meets the general notability guidelines. I don't think that he does because although there are lots of mentions of his name in news sources, I can't find any significant coverage of him in independent reliable secondary sources. If that can be found, I would be happy to keep this article, but I don't think it's there. BelovedFreak 12:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. sourcing has not been demonstrated and the new material has been reviewed and found wanting Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP Contested PROD - Software with no indication of notability. Codf1977 (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
> When i was young and we were still working with papers, we used to have an Encyclopædia Universalis at our library at school (more or less the same as the Encyclopædia Britannica). What is Universalis if some appears and some not?
Wikipedia in english has the difference to be the common Enclyclopedia space worldwide (compare to Wikipedia in German, Spanish, Danish or French, etc addressing to a part of the community only) not only the one for north American people. One could notice that Wikipedia currently rather mention American software. Is it fair? Does it mean that we all need to work with the same tools? (of course we could think about famous work office suite...).
Of course, in my opinion, this 'Universalis' questions also applies for history facts, actors, philosophy, etc.
> About the comment that the software is used by searcher (which are only about 20% of the users in total), I was wondering:
- Does researchers works has to be hidden? Isn’t it part of the scientist community knowledge? Isn’t part of the of the knowledge to share on Wikipedia?
- Wikipedia prefers to link to .org web sites… which mean we’ll specially link to research works and publications. Otherwise information may not be trivial if linking to industrial users?
- In general, electrical devices optimisation (= energy saving) is an interesting debate and people may be concern with such topics and tools.
=> Shall i rather suppress those links to searchers work (I see some other simulation tools only mention 1 or 2 reference, which could limit verifiable and non-trivial information level).
> About the « as advertising » mention, i’m a bit surprise when i see some other sotware articles (sofware or company names).
Are they advertisement? (if yes this would not be fair).
Have they all reliable and verifiable and non-trivial references?
What do they describe: technical features? History ? Functions? Group organisation? Applications? (which may be a good link to many applications in Wikipedia).
What is advertisement and what is not? What is useful to show in the Encyclopedia for the reader? 3Dsoftware (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. the two sources provided are trivial mentions and noone else has put forward any sources that are not assertions Spartaz Humbug! 07:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. Disputed prod. a reference has been added to a warship that the airline is supposed to be named after. Google provides very little noq (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep by rough consensus, but a definite consensus to improve/rewrite. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2010 (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)) . |
The following is from the fisrt comments on this page, which the creator of this page has not replied to.
Most of the content is not actually about racism, because a large proportion of Israeli Jews is of the same ethnicity as the Palestinians. I think this article is just another attempt to heap criticism on Israel, for which we have other more balanced articles. This needs a rewrite or a trip to AFD. JFW | T@lk 06:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC))
A. What is the justification for this page, Is there already a racism page on larger nations than aiming at tiny Israel?
B "OR" it's all a collection of essays, and has a problem of original research.
C - The sources are from obscure books and other enreliable sources
D - The tone is not proper.Ip82166 (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For all those reasons, it should be kept. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly non-notable college football player wjematherbigissue 11:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Being featured on compilations such as "Freakscene: Cork Is An Anagram Of Rock (2004)" does not demonstrate notability. Sharing the stage with other artists at one time or other is not notable. Being in a (unspecified) Hot Press reader's top ten poll is not notable, as the criteria specifies "national music chart".
Based on http://irishmusiccentral.com the only label he has released CDs with is Whimsical River Records so notability comes down to whether this label is notable. Using Google searches the first and only name (for at least the next 5 pages of results) that appears with this label is Ian Whitty and as "Will O' The Wisp" has track 5 listed as "The Whimsical River" it seems reasonable to deduce that Whitty is this label's only artist.
The article was created in 2008 and has been worked on by various contributors (including Ianwhitty&theexchange (talk · contribs)) and so it appears unlikely that reliable sources demonstrating notability will be added in the near future. Fæ (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable director. The films aren't notable, and the only references are IMDB, a blog reporting on a convention, and personal webpages. Fails WP:BIO Tassedethe (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable run of the mill IT security consultancy - lacks significant coverage, fails WP:CORP, the third party refs in the article (that work) don't cover the company in any major detail and have the feel of vendor provided text. Codf1977 (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links to references now corrected and further reference added. As stated, the entry was intended to be purely factual. There is no intention for this to be advertising. Wording was carefully considered based on other, similar wikipedia entries for other consultancies. Apologies if any offence caused - feel free to take the page down if it really is in contradiction with wikipedia policies but I would prefer constructive suggestions as to more appropriate wording. If further evidence is required to prove notability please advise whether or not further, similar articles would suffice.User:richard_james_hunt
The result was delete. No sources have been adduced so the keep arguments are by assertion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's use a two-pronged approach to evaluate notability here:
Hence, I would argue for deletion. We link to the Agency's site at Nord-Est (development region), as is proper. But do we really need this massive chunk of wholly uncited bureaucratese on a small agency without any administrative powers that no reliable source has bothered to cover in any meaningful depth? I would submit we do not. Biruitorul Talk 04:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This had a prod tag removed by User:Inniverse. In accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/609th Air Communications Squadron and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4th Combat Camera Squadron, this squadron is not notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close. Wrong forum, Divya Desai is a redirect. It had some content before it was changed into a redirect but that content is a subset of the current target article. I would for that reason not recommend to list it at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Ashishraikar (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. merging needs sources content. No objections to a redirect Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
British University sports club, no indication of any form of notability, not clear what level they play at. whole page is un-sourced. No coverage of the club outside it's own facebook page, does not appear to have own website with which to confirm any of the details.
Fails WP:V and WP:GNG - Delete. Codf1977 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point to this page with a few maps. WP:NOTREPOSITORY CTJF83 chat 06:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —fetch·comms 00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a website. Doubtful notability, claims to be "widely regarded as the best and most accurate of any roller coaster poll available due to its ranking algorithm" but cites its own website as the source. Seems almost to be an advertisement for the site itself. A quick Google search turned up no secondary sources on this, seems to be self-promoting and a minor website at best. Velociraptors (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is a strong consensus to delete based on a thorough analysis of the sources and known facts against the relevant notability guidelines. Mkativerata (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previous editors had CSD'd this on as a blatant advert; either that was cleaned up or the problem never existed. I personally believe the article is probably notable enough to be kept, assuming that the poster (in the image) is accurately representing its awards. However, I believe we should get consensus on the issues of advertising and notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to establish notability. Blitzer Van Susterwolf (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that the subject of the article is not notable and that the purpose of the article is to promote its subject (note the latter reason derives from more than the mere allegation of paid editing; paid editing not being a reason in and of itself for deletion). Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a paid editing piece that was solicited by it's subject in violation of our conflict of interest guidelines and our policy that Wikipedia is not a medium for self-promotion. This page was developed through this job on elance.com in which the client "lucalongobardi" wrote looking to create a nice report story page on my company also I would like to attach my name as the founder of the company, to my wife name, that she´s already on wikipedia, and increase exposure on google. and also I would like to hire somebody that can increase my exposure and my company exposure on search engines. The service provider is "annaloza", the same account name as the single purpose account that signed up to create this. This should be deleted as a promotional puff piece of a nonnotable subject. ThemFromSpace 04:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not notable enough player for a WP bio Mayumashu (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. G11: http://www.worldscibooks.com/lifesci/6620.html —fetch·comms 03:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good faith entry but one that falls outside of the scope of Wikipedia. Most importantly, this textbook article does not meet the notability policy for books. This may be more well-suited elsewhere. Airplaneman ✈ 02:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and improve. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essay-style article, a seemingly random collection of blog-style commentaries, virtually none relating to the proposed subject of the article. The entire article is based on the hypothesis that opposing Israeli occupation is tantamount to racism, if that hypothesis is not accept then the validity of the content automatically falls. (there also quite a lot of Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacies). Soman (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Unless you delete Racism in Israel which is worse in tone, unreliable sources and collection of essays.Ip82166 (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Ip82166 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
*keep I wish ADL would be accepted by critics of Israel. and Haaretz is quoted here as well, so? There's so far no argument for deleting it, What essays are here? the point was made that one's bias view should not dictate deletion. No none's including Palestinian's racism should be pardoned.Ip82166 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Ip82166 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
I have also observed that in the last 24 hours you have removed important information by a user on Israel National News (a well noted news source) showing its well notoriety in books, cited in RS media outlets such as: The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Guardian, Foxnews. But you have removed it (what is your fear???) with some noensense argument there.Colourfully (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not explicitly... just push for deletion of this article about racism among Arab Palestinians. But to argue against the deletion of Racism in Israel...Colourfully (talk)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct Washington DC-based antiwar group. When I created this article back in August 2005, the claim to notability was very slim even by 2005's standards. I reviewed all of the references today, and of the reliable sources, none of them constitute substantial coverage, if they mention the group at all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album; exclusive release for Australia only. Contains tracks found on other albums, nothing special. Didn't chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLP for which I can find no reliable sources or significant independent coverage. Majewski sounds notable, but I can find nothing to verify the claims made in the article. I also checked the three interwiki articles and they are unsourced as well. If the article content is not verifiable, then notability cannot be established. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page has no reliable sources other than than Urban Institute Press website. It reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. - tbone (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GHG Vehicle Test Group is just a an identical test group. Its a definition and there is not enough content for an article. In addition, the article is unsourced as the only reference is a dead link. Beagel (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –MuZemike 19:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Software product with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if they do not warrant their own articles, i suggest placing a template at the bottom of the terminal emulator and ssh articles listing programmes of this type. S3819 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Software product with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another example of why we need a CSD tag for products that don't assert notabilty. Toddst1 (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Software product with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete: A great example of why we need a CSD tag for products that don't assert notabilty. Toddst1 (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Note also that this is part of a walled garden of articles promoting the products of a "Van Dyke Software Inc." Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SecureFX, SecureCRT. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Software product with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –MuZemike 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fashion designer. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. No evidence of notability: a fashion designer; has founded a company. Has picture. Appears to have one brief article in the specialised Australian Filipina Magazine. I imagine the only reason she got this coverage was because of her combining X and Y, a group with few members. Unable to find anything else. Article is simply a vanity and promotional piece created by the subject. A previous version Maria de Guzman Fashion Designer was speedied for advertising and this one could have as well if someone hadn't removed all the spam and cruft. The creator also blanked her talkpage and removed the prod without addressing the concerns nor giving an explanation. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced roumours. A google search for "Material Girl Musical" gives no relevant hits. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is questionable. Article claims Michael Mallis has created one film, however a google search reveals only a single IMDB page for the film and no special recognitions. Nothing else on Michael Mallis could be found, leading me to believe he does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Velociraptors (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Bootleg release (which we tend to get rid of on sight anyway), so no label for obvious reasons. No coverage, again for obvious reasons. No hint of notability, and no possibility of there ever being any. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to NetHope. Spartaz Humbug! 07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; belongs as a paragraph in the article NetHope. Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written in an advertising manner and all the sources listed are created by executives in the company. Some of the sources are broken links or spam. A google search reveals that there are no sources to back up the claims of notability. Mars2035 (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a user of this software and find the eXtremeDB article informative. I know the documentation well, so I can add some references. However, since you have initiated this effort to remove the article, I would appreciate your providing more information/guidance. First, please point me toward the Wikipedia page for a software product that you believe _is_ appropriately referenced, so that I can use that as a model.
Second, what links appearing on this page do you consider to be "spam"? That seems to be a subjective judgment on your part.
Third, please justify you statement that "a google search reveals that there are no sources to back up the claims of notability." When I google "extremeDB" and examine the first three pages of results, I find news articles from such publications as EE Times, Dr. Dobb's Journal and other journals reporting the news that the vendor has made to this product. Do you dispute that these are objective publications with high standing in the software industry, that these publications have no commercial interest in eXtremeDB, yet consider changes to the product to be newsworthy?
Your explanation of how your Google search justifies deletion of this article seems extremely cursory. Please explain what *exactly* you searched on and what you would have NEEDED to see in this Google search to "back up claims of notability". As stated above, my search on the product name confirms that well-regarded news media covering this product's industry believe that it is important enough to deserve news coverage. Also, a Google search on this product's *product category* (that is, a search on its software type, without using the product name) returns pages about eXtremeDB very high in the returned results. Is *that* what you are looking for in terms of confirmation from Google regarding the product's notability? I frankly don't see the connection -- but you are the one who has introduced google search results as somehow establishing notability. Welllstein (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for canceling your nomination to delete the page. However, I think your statement regarding EE Times and Dr. Dobb's Journal shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between news, on the one hand, and promotion, on the other. DDJ and EETimes are in fact professionally edited magazines; I think the editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal would take issue with your statement that his publication's content is "written as promotional articles by the companies that own the software." Yes, sometimes publications do use wording from organization's "official" statements (just as some political reportage sometimes use terminology set out by a politician or congressional report), and they do, indeed, publish articles by practitioners. But that does not take away from the fact that an independent "real" editor - that is, someone who does not have a stake in the article's subject -- has vetted and chosen that text for publication. That sort of gatekeeper function is getting rarer in the Web 2.0 world, but a good argument can be made that it is (or was) a better way of filtering information than the "everybody's an editor" model of Wikipedia.
You write, "The links that I called spam are the 6th and 7th on the list.(you will see immediately when you look at them)." Are you referring to articles from Dr. Dobb's and Embedded Systems Engineering? No, I do not see that they are spam. To me, they look very much like other technical articles, published in magazines that interest people in a particular field. Please back up your claim that they are spam. Where would such articles have to appear in order for you *not* to label them spam?
Finally, you still haven't told me -- what exactly were you looking for in your Google search that would have convinced you of the topic's notability? Is this a standard endorsed by Wikipedia, and if so, where in the Wikipedia rules and guidelines can I read about it? Welllstein (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Cardiology (album). Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONGS. A song being released as a single does not make it notable. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Conor Oberst. A separate discussion can be made for forking off a new discography page. —fetch·comms 00:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only 3 articles link to this article, and those 3 are the artist's article, the list of songs done by a group including that artist, and the group itself. The list is rather long and excessive, so if it doesn't merit deletion, it should at least be trimmed and put into the discography section of Conor Obersts's article. cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of political parties in Sweden#Minor parties. Spartaz Humbug! 07:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A political party that received fewer than 1,000 votes and only has one major political viewpoint – on mobile phone masts. Not sure if this is going to meet WP:N or WP:POLITICIAN. The New Raymie (t • c) 23:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable athlete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Few or no reliable sources discuss this individual in a significant way. Article also has an "autobiography" cleanup tag on it, although I don't see any obvious indication of a WP:COI. SnottyWong yak 23:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG, and fails WP:AUTHOR. I searched in Persian but couldn't find any references for the article. Most of the references of the article are the articles by subject and not on her.This article has been deleted in Persian Wikipedia.Farhikht (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]