The result was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This product is one of many products covered in the Debit card article. As a stored-value card in a limited market, it does not seem particularly notable in its own right. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. withdrawing nomination per improvement to article. Still not convinced on notability, but there's no harm in leaving it for a little while. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Contested PROD (accidentally PRODded twice). Hopefully an AfD will put this sub-stub out of its misery. There is no significance to this even whatsoever and will barely be remembered in a few weeks, never mind in years to come. While the event was tragic, not all tragedies are notable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If there is anywhere someone wants to perform a merge, let me know, ut we can't merge into a non-existant article. Courcelles 04:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable county road in Florida with no assertion of notability. – TMF 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If there is anywhere someone wants to perform a merge, let me know, ut we can't merge into a non-existant article. Courcelles 04:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable county road in Florida with no assertion of notability. Contested PROD. – TMF 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 04:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overkill: Info in article already carried on the Ian Paisley, Jr. and Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) articles. This is a relatively minor parochial political peccadillo, not Watergate. Does not require an article of its own. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE just nominated for G10 speedy, Classic WP:COATRACK Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey: I guess the AfD notice was blanked by Weaponbb7 who felt that speedy deletion was a better way to handle it. Maybe so. Perhaps I should have done that but I wasn't sure. If so, sorry.
Secondly, I considered a merge. However, it is a rather large article to simply merge and by no stretch of the imagination should everything contained in the Ian Paisley, Jr. scandal article be assumed to be notable or accurate. Prioritization and succintness are important.
The intensity of the "level of coverage" depends on the viewpoint of the editor. I think there is stuff that can be manually merged but the article Ian Paisley, Jr. scandal should be deleted per se as Paisley was convicted of no crime and there is no reason a negatively connoted article with his name should remain "on the books" as they say. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 04:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources which refer to a concept called "Modular Economics". This appears to be a subtle advertisement for a company called Modular Economics, as evidenced by the external link provided at the bottom of the article. Even if it's not an advertisement, the term still doesn't exist in reliable sources. SnottyWong verbalize 22:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If there is anywhere someone wants to perform a merge, let me know, ut we can't merge into a non-existant article. Courcelles 04:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable county road in Florida with no assertion of notability. Contested PROD. – TMF 21:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Mike Cline (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails: WP:MUSIC. This article has been deleted mulitiple times. In its present incarnation/recreation, Speedy Delete tags where placed on it but removed due to "charting". While charting is important to an artist, this article does not have the primary sources required by WP:GNG to assert its notability. --moreno oso (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to B4U Movies . —SpacemanSpiff 20:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concerned with tone and notability - quite a few edits by MrRohanM «(also created by him)» and socks, including «two recent edits from» TheRoyTheMan (who I suspect to be a sock too given his editing interests). However, this is better than most of the articles I AFD to me – but I'm no expert in Bollywood film. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 21:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (timestamp for additions in «» brackets: 21:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 20:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made up by this band. Featured only in one newspaper article (in which they claim to have made it up) but no widespread currency. Chris (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please Dont Delete the page is under construction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goirick (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was Just creating an article about the band when this issue Came up Its there now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goirick (talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
97 WEST has created a sound and has named it morph.It would be an Cultural impoverishment to delete the article that talks about the sound.There are 1000's of articles that talk about 97 West's New sound :the Morph Sound.Kindly consider the article
http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1RNNN_enIN350IN350&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Kolkata+band+produces+new+Morph+music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goirick (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main Aim of the Wikipedia is to aid the readers.The article in Wiki would help the readers of these online articles listed above,to define the form of music these musicians are trying to create and help enrich culture
I am sure Wikipedia would understand more info on 97west
http://www.ptinews.com/news/840174_Kolkata-band-produces-new-Morph-music-
http://www.myspace.com/97westmusic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goirick (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the user who commented above was busy enough to even click a single url. and Yes I would rather be a n00b than an abusive wiki user.This is a discussion forum, you cannot get personal and abuse people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goirick (talk • contribs) 04:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete THe sources are clearly mentioned above.Just take a look http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20100803/1416/tnl-kolkata-band-produces-new-morph-musi_1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.82.98 (talk • contribs) — 122.161.82.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Dont Delete Please vary information from Indian Media before deleting—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.82.98 (talk • contribs) — 122.161.82.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Dont DeleteMost of the main stream papers in India has coverd this story about 97west and the new sound they have come up with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.82.98 (talk • contribs) — 122.161.82.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Dont DeleteMorph is a new,unique sound,and a name they have given to the style of music 97west produces.please dont delete.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.82.98 (talk • contribs) — 122.161.82.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Dont DeleteDid you ever hear anything called morph music before?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.82.98 (talk • contribs) — 122.161.82.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation of a sourced and coherent article that meets notability standards. Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline incoherent text written by a WP:SPA and an IP seems to be about something which I cannot find any clear evidence exists as any particular thing. Could be recreated if someone could find definite sources. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to Joint Controller? - but needs massive amounts of editing - this one is a bit of a loss as is [2] [3] [4]. A joint controller can be one of two main things. In medicine it can be an electrical or fluid-mechanical knee/ankle joint in an artificial limb for amputees. In robotics it is the systems used to control the joints in the similar limbs to the amputees as well as other joints. As most robots use electromechanical systems for operating their joints I am assuming the mention of robots in the article is referring to these. A JointController is an entry into a software program which calls the functions to enable joint control [5]. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing there really. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not a high-enough (career) ranked or accomplished enough player for a WP bio Mayumashu (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Discussion needed on better keep/delete guidelines for tennis bios per this talk [6] Mayumashu (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Mike Cline (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very recently released book which fails WP:NBOOK. SnottyWong comment 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as per nom. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Keep for reasons given below. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G10. Jujutacular talk 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(({Subject is non-notable, most of the article is a very badly sourced "attack", in my opinion. Being a television meteorologist is not inherently notable; neither is an allegation of a single crime. The only intact referencing this article supplies is an anonymous posting on a television message board and a link to a U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons entry, which may or may not be the same guy. The name is different. If we're going to abide by BLP's "edit conservatively" advice; the undue weight given the allegations of criminality in this article should be a red flag in itself.))} Deconstructhis (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN software. The two refs provided are a blog and a download site. No G-hits found for the product (plenty for the term). Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the news. How notable will this be in 25 years? Stonemason89 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Mike Cline (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Assertions of notability ("one of the most successful band (sic) in Maldives") cannot be verified. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced, non-notable baseball player. Minor leaguers, with rare exception, aren't notable enough to have articles. There is no indication that this player is at all notable. — Timneu22 · talk 16:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 04:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Youth player for national side, yet to make professional debut. Fails WP:ATHLETE Quentin X (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. For the most part, the keep side was producing vague and/or unproven claims that have no bearing on her objective notability as specified by the guidelines. At the end, however, DGG mentions some sources that may be used to establish notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO with no sources forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. No third-party independent sources establish his notability except for his WorldCat Identity which does not do the trick. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:BIO. Non-notable life, not really noticed by third-party sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created a year ago (under the title English Channel swimmers; it was just moved to the current title today) and has, since its creation, consisted entirely of a table listing ten people. The problem is that this is just the first ten people to swim the English Channel, out of over 800 successful swimmers according to the reference cited here, and English Channel#By swimming (which details several of the more notable crossings) indicates the number of successful swimmers actually totaled nearly 1,000 by 2005. So what we have is a page that lists likely fewer than 1% of what it should, and nobody has shown any interest over the past year in expanding it, and if someone did spend hours copying the full list of successful swimmers, we'd have a table listing a thousand people, of which a small handful might not be completely obscure. I don't see the value in any of that, but my prod was removed. (No objection if someone wanted to merge the list of the first ten swimmers into the English Channel article, though.) Propaniac (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 04:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book. — Timneu22 · talk 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does assert notability - don't think he is though. Chris (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not have the requisite coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article was actually marked for deletion per WP:PROD by JamesBWatson but the tag was subsequently removed although arguably the article's content is very similar to before. It has no references, and as a result has been changed many times by IPs with no way of checking if those changes constituted vandalism or not. Attempts at finding references pertaining to the specific title have failed, and the subject's notability is also questionable. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CoercorashTalkContr. 04:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable topic, appears to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Timneu22 · talk 12:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This term is not used at all in the political discussion in Germany, it is most probably an invention by some wikipedia authors. See missing interwikis, missing sources and number of links. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 13:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to repeat: there is nothing with the official or unofficial name "Stahlhelm-Fraktion" in Germany. And because it does not exist you would not find any sources. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete in this AfD. Whether this should be kept or merged, or Brad (British Rates and Data) merged into the current article can be decided on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 11 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)) . |
Not notable company. References consist of either 1) sponsorships (i.e., ads) placed in the Guardian, 2) self-published media kits / press releases, or 3) passing mention in press releases for a ALF. Creator has a COI, using EMAP in username. 1 GNews hit (mention in passing), a few GHits. GregJackP Boomer! 12:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted. Chris (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
original research on band which shows no notability. no coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
((db-band))
. Not finding any third party sources whatsoever. The only real claim to notability is that an EP by the band supposedly reached number 6 on the top 20 chart of a small community radio station, 4ZZZ. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]The result was Keep because all issues that gave ground to this nomination is resolved, thanks to hard-working participants. (Non-admin Closure) Fleet Command (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is devoid of any secondary source as well as any primary source except for the video game's manual. Apparently it has been like that for two and half a year now. It also fails to establish its notability; even the article itself confesses this issue by calling it subject a "relatively unheard-of computer game". Fleet Command (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Simply no support for nom's position on this one Mike Cline (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest deleting this article as, even though sourced in respect of separate data, the entire tables, which are not sourced per se, consisiting of a mixture of separate numbers, constiute violation of the following Wikipedia rule: WP:SYN. Rubikonchik (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Just to make sure everybody undrestands correctly, the violation of WP:SYN consists in the fact that no sources are available for the made up tables.Rubikonchik (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC) The further debate goes, I realize in fact that not only rule: WP:SYN is violated, but also rule: WP:COATRACK and rule: WP:FRINGE. Please, do consider application of all the three rules in your answers. Rubikonchik (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- again, wrong understanding for unknwon to me reasons. This article was put up exactly for the reasons exlained above, and namely violation of three WP rules.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, exactlyRubikonchik (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not relavant to the argumentation for deletion nomination of this article, nor is this contested at allRubikonchik (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- again you are missing the point. Not only each number entry may be contested, as already have done commentators on this very page, but what is being contested is this article containing invented lists by WP users.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both presence of conclusion and comparative judgment are clearly present and have been already contested and discussed by edtiors (see above for references). That's exactly how the bias comes in - through obscure, flawed and criteria absent statistics.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, and the reader does reach a very specific clear conclusion, have a look at the provided above references in respect of the Siege of Leningrad article. As a a matter of fact, a reader does adhere to the advanced by this invented table position.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'am afraid you haven't read this talk page. I'm not sure where I have made your point???Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, sounds like that kind of argumentation: "whatever you say, I don't like it and won't agree just because!". That doesn't give any credit to your argumentation. Please refer, like I did, to WP rules.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the articles, lacks the very core, the subject, the very common value, which is even more important in statistics and comparative tables and lists.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-A & B argumentation was not argued here. It's not clear to me what's the purpose of advancing this undiscussed issue? It's about historical speculation here, please see above as explained.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of scientific support is right there: there are no other sources of such table and lists, unless you consider WP editors established scientists. When an editor refers to this table as an ultimate source to consider a battle "the most" or "one of the most", depending on the number retained in the table, costly in casualties - the reinvention fo history happens right there. Conspiracy theory was just part of the multiple criteria definition, please reread the above given argumentation in this regard. I'm not the only one who disagrees with numbers, there are plenty of editors who disagree with numbers already on this very deletion nomination page. An estimate is a supposition per se, you contradict yourself...Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not contesting individual entries. Again, your argumentation in this regard is irrelevant. This is not being discussed here. I'm contesting the made up tables and lists with no clear criteria. However, numerous users have raised the question of individual entries here: indeed, the individual numbers themselves are all subject to contestation.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope it's better to follow this way.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite an encyclopedic topic, obviously. In World War 2 armies on both sides did keep track of how many people they had that died in each battle, so I doubt those stats are in question. For the rest, you just reference the most trustworthy source. If necessary you can add in two numbers, saying 20000-25000 if one says 20,000, and another says 25,000. This is what the Wikipedia exist for. Good job to those who created and worked on it. Dream Focus 17:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep:Issue resolved. (Non-Admin Closure) Fleet Command (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is devoid of any kind of secondary source. It does not introduce any source but its only source is obviously the video game itself, a primary source. It also fails to establish its notability. Besides, I can make neither head nor tail out of its "Playable characters" section; seemingly it is talking in-universe. Fleet Command (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Overall, the deletion arguments based on a lack of independent coverage were stronger. Arguments for keeping included WP:USEFUL and WP:POTENTIAL. While it is true that it's better to fix an article rather than delete it, it has to fulfill the notability criteria first, which it fails to do. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/436th Transportation Battalion (United States), non-combat service support units of battalion size or smaller have to have their notability clearly established. The information given in this unit's entry - purely barebones lineage and honours - is not sufficient to justify notability for a support unit at this level. Relevant material is available at Red Ball Express, and other articles such as 1st Sustainment Command (Theater) which detail overall support force contributions in U.S. Army campaigns. This article itself however does not justify the unit's notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
:::Pleaded? I am confused, all your comments on my talk page are in my archive here. I don't see anything requesting a change in activity. Sadads (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
I believe it does lower the notability of the award. So unless there is something else the 14th Transportation Battalion (United States) is noted for I am leaning towards Delete --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. With all votes save the nominator being for Keep, this is clearly Snowing. Non-admin closure. Edward321 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) guideline. Not sure though, and sorry for the noobishness. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 10:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined PROD. Prod reason was: Non-notable journal having published a small number of papers since 2003. Apparently not indexed anywhere. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was userfy to User:Stebunik/Jožef Kerec. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the biography is non-notable. A CSD was rejected. There is no reliable source to show that Jožef Kerec was an apostolic vicar. I have not found any sources that show notability on any other standard. Request AfD delete. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 07:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn (and no !votes for delete) or wrong venue. (Non-admin closure) Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to fall under WP:R and seems to fall specifically under WP:R#DELETE #8. jheiv talk contribs 07:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Division of Melbourne. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN based on the bio linked to on the campaign website or official ALP site (candidates fail the notability criteria for politicians unless they meet the general notability criteria). This is a recently created article, so raising for discussion as there may be other reasons for possible notability that I may have missed in searching through Google News. Fæ (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. That is the consensus and it is strongly supported by our content policies (eg WP:V) and notability guidelines. Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing indicate that this discontinued product has ever been notable. The only reference are press release. Miami33139 (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No comment on PeerGuardian, as that is an editing issue. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing to indicate that this is a notable product. Miami33139 (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC) – (contribs)[reply]
With over 1,000,000 downloads in under a year I would say otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.119.216 (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The sources are insufficient and mostly local. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable politician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Page created by election committee per [20]. ttonyb (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. withdrawn by principal author DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an original research, it's not notable, and fancruft. Shadowjams (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jujutacular talk 01:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He won the primary for a state house seat...but the election is three months away. No notability quite yet, I think. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 03:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mandsford, that's not correct. WP:POLITICIAN says: "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" so if he is elected to the state house seat he'll be eligible then, for now though it has to be a delete especially given that it's a promo article. Valenciano (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The consensus has obviously changed during the course of this discussion, in light of new information and improvements to the article, to the point where the current consensus is to keep. At the least, there is certainly no consensus to delete. Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Challenged prod. I don't think judges at this level are intrinsically notable, and there is nothing in the references to show otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jujutacular talk 01:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable recording label. Hasn't been significantly changed in two years. Created by a COI SPA. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 03:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Roxboro, North Carolina. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another school in North Carolina – this time, I feel notability is insufficient and I won't attempt a rewrite unless this is kept. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 03:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. A gadfly candidate for Florida's Senate seat who doesn't even register in the polls. bd2412 T 02:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Katy Perry. Since some of the "delete" opinions mentioned the possibility of merging some content back to the artist's article, I'm doing a redirect to preserve the history. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article serves no purpose. Its is nowhere near notable even if I had not removed the speculation, unsourced information and WP:OR with this edit. Per WP:NALBUMS it is not notable as it has not release date, no reliable information, no cover, no tracklisting and almost non-existant independent coverage. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not notable enough a tennis to warrant a WP bio Mayumashu (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The primary "keep" argument is that the film involves notable actors; however, notability is not inherited. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No plot description or sources cited, and a Google search with keywords "forever 1992 movie OR film" yields almost nothing on the topic except for an imdb page. Also, is this movie notable? cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 00:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith talk 20:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has notability issues and no references. Farjad0322 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy nomination. This was nominated by an IP, discussion page created by User:Romrem04, but added clumsily to the June 12 AFD logs, with no templates, it seems to have been missed. The entry is still tagged for AFD, I am reposting a properly fomatted discussion here in lieu of removing the tags. Comments from the previous verison of this page follow. Hairhorn (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Hairhorn (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not notable enough for inclusion -- nothing interesting in last few years
- Once notable, always notable. Is this AfD properly formed? It looks off. There was prior AfD of this I think.--Milowent (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
How long does this have to stay here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.179.2 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Clearly passes WP:PROF criterion 6, so keep. Non-admin closure.Chris (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CSD denied, so submitting to AfD. Doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). GorillaWarfare talk 19:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence stub article for a song that has not charted and fails WP:NSONGS, so the song should be redirected to the album, To Hrono Stamatao. Aspects (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a directory or a website for a hobby. This lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources and falls well short of WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and update: Some of the detail is too much but this is the best place on the internet to get this information.
The result was delete. There were a lot of non-policy based arguments putforward for keeping this but no reliable non trivial sourcing was found to effectively refute the delete arguments, which were solidly based on policy. The clear consensus is that this does not have adequate sourcing to allow it to be retained Spartaz Humbug! 04:53, 12 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)) . |
I could not find any reliable secondary sources to support this article. Appears to fail WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. Note that I have removed two references. One to dragonlance-movie.com, where it was merely included in a directory of related sites without any commentry (indeed, one can "suggest a site for listing"). The second to dl3e.com, where the information seems to have been taken down (and the site doesn't look like WP:RS anyway). There are no hits for this game in our videogames RS custom google search. I would guess that the best bet for coverage is in Dragon magazine or suchlike, if at all. But articles ought to be based on such sources in the first instance. Marasmusine (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like that change policy. Once again debating this point here is useless. Ridernyc (talk) 14:48, 9 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 result was delete. Consensus is that the current article is too full of inaccuracies and bias for it to be cleaned up without starting anew. I'll leave it to editorial discretion whether this topic ought to be recreated at some point in the future, or if it would be better to expand and improve on related articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is essentially a POV fork of the existing articles on US immigration history. Category:Immigration to the United States. It is based in large part on two sources: a polemic pamphlet[27] published by a partisan group, Federation for American Immigration Reform, and a slim book classified as "Juvenile Nonfiction" by Google Books.[28] Considering the extensive set of neutral articles we already have, this POV article is out of place. A fresh article could be written on this topic, but this article is better just deleted. Note that it was immediately "PRODed" but that the single-purpose editor removed it. Will Beback talk 22:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Chris (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability guidance. If we put aside having famous parents (not a rationale for notability) then we have evidence of a modelling assignment for a clothes store. There are no sources to demonstrate any historical impact on the field of modelling or other media interest not primarily based on her being Bob Geldof's daughter. Fæ (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mkativerata (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No ctiteria of notability is present. "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." (WP:LIST) The list seems to be one's original research. No relible sources are present A1 (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mess. The best thing to do is delete and start over. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The vote count is very close, and both sides have presented substantial arguments. Although I am unfamiliar with UK roads, the second discussion leads me to believe that the road is not significant enough to warrant an article, while the first discussion has failed to find an appropriate merge target. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As one can probably judge from the article, The Roundway is about as insignificant a road as can be imagined. I can just about accept (although I'm less than convinced) that its considerably more historic neighbour Lordship Lane, Haringey warrants an article by virtue of its age and the assorted notable buildings on it. Unless we really are going down the route of "every road in the world is noteworthy" (a legitimate view, but one wildly at odds with current practice), I don't believe that a short residential street in a north London suburb will ever be. For those who aren't familiar with London geography, none of the notable buildings mentioned here (Bruce Castle, Broadwater Farm, All Hallows Church) are actually on The Roundway or connected with it in any way, they just happen to be in the general area. – iridescent 07:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We-ell, its got a newsagent, a Chinese takeaway and a Snack Bar in a small parade at the junction with New Road. Maybe we'll grab a bite there sometime? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, we already have an article on Zumba. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. under G4... again. Additionally, I'm salting the page due to how many times it has been created. The new article does nothing to address the concerns of the previous nomination, and until that can be done the article will not be retained. Any desire to recreate this page can be brought up at WP:DRV. The argument placed here for overturning the earlier decision is wholly unconvincing to me and must be met with consensus. AFC may be a good way to establish that consensus. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page was put up for a deletion discussion, the result of which was to delete said article. It was recreated and then speedily deleted (per G4). A search could only find the comic site and nothing else, so I believe it does not meet the notability rules, as there is no third party content. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claims charting but these are not good national charts. Nothing else to indicate notability. Article appears to be created by their label. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very heavily padded and coatracked. Almost all of the sources are 1.) other Wikipedia articles, 2.) the home pages of the artists he's played for, 3.) don't mention him at all, 4.) only mention him in passing, or 5.) are dead links. Claims notability with touring with Charlie Daniels and playing with various artists, but no sources exist to verify any of his many coatrack-ish claims. Notability is not inherited; just because you played keyboard for someone notable doesn't make you notable in your own right if nobody paid attention to you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being a fan of this person in his Goin Bulilit days, I failed to find enough reliable sources for this person, which is actually quite a shame. I do support re-write if the article is kept however. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mkativerata (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No ctiteria of notability is present. "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." (WP:LIST) The list seems to be one's original research. No relible sources are present A1 (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jujutacular talk 00:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've been working on Wikipedia for about 16 months, but I've just encountered something for the first time, and I need assistance from someone who is experienced in dealing with this kind of problem.
I have been working on a clean-up of biographies of University of Florida alumni, including athletes in various sports. I am fairly knowledgeable on the topic of Gator sports and I can generally connect the dots of Gator alumni life stories and professional biographies with on-line sources, my collection of hard-copy Gator sports references and my access to the on-line Florida alumni directory. Today, I encountered the Donn Finney article while working my way through the "Florida Gators football players" category file. According to the unsourced text of the Wikipedia article, Finney attended the University of Florida in 1964 and played football while he was there. I had never heard the "Donn Finney" name before, so I checked my usual Florida alumni and Gator sports references. Having done this, I note Three Problems: First, according to the 2009 Florida Gators Football Media Guide, there has never been a Gator football letterman by that or a similar name. Second, my search of the on-line Florida alumni directory (available through the University of Florida Alumni Association website, only to registered Florida alumni) also did not produce any results for any person who had every attended the university with the same or a similar name. Third, the birth date given in the article is 1948; "Don Finney" purportedly played football at the University of Florida in 1964----at the age of 16!
The article also states that the subject person, Donn Finney, was posthumously inducted into the Georgia Music Hall of Fame in 1995. This yields a Fourth Problem: neither the Wikipedia article about the GMHOF nor the GMHOF's website lists anyone by the same or a similar name. I was, however, able to find some obscure on-line references to a saxophonist named Donn Finney, mostly in the nature of obscure music fan sites.
After having done this basic due diligence, I looked to see who was the Wikiedpia editor that created the article: "gloriafinney." That editor's total contribution to Wikipedia are the three edits that created the Donn Finney article. An internet search reveals several blogs where someone named "Gloria Finney" discusses her dead father, Donn Finney.
Moreover, the three footnoted references actually used in the Wikipedia article either link to a Youtube video or album collector sales websites. In summary, I cannot find any verifying references that "Donn Finney" ever attended the University of Florida, ever played football for the Florida Gators, or was ever inducted into the Georgia Music Hall of Fame. It would appear that this article has some rather serious WP:V and WP:NPOV problems, and to my way of thinking, some serious notability problems, too.
So, what is the proper procedure for dealing with this article? I'm all ears. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]