< 11 January | 13 January > |
---|
The result was delete. Courcelles 02:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. He's a NASCAR driver, a Scientologist and the founder of the "Dianetics Racing Team"
Consensus at Wikiproject NASCAR appears to be that he's an amateur who fails WP:ATHLETE [1]
Most sources are either self-published or published by Church of Scientology as promotional. The other sources seem to mainly relate to the "Dianetics Racing Team" itself, which I suppose might merit an article (I don't know) which could mention the founder, however this chap doesn't himself.Scott Mac 23:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology deletion discussions. Will Beback talk 00:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article does not meet NASCAR's standards to be a driver, or team. I'm not sure about the scientific side of the article though. Since then is the cause of my edit which removed our banner. Nascar1996 01:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. And please say it next time :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable performance EP. Thousands of these exist on iTunes and hardly any ever become notable. Per WP:NALBUMS -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:NTENNIS - no ATP Tour main draw matches played in, no ATP Challenger titles, not a former WP notable junior player Mayumashu (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:NTENNIS - no ATP Tour main draw matches played in, no ATP Challenger titles, not a former WP notable junior player Mayumashu (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an un-notable concert tour providing no context, per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — GorillaWarfare talk 04:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is that this article is about an individual rugby league test match that is not notable. Vanruvan (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article as presented gives no firm rationale against WP:BIO or WP:PROF, in particular none of the roles held are a guarantee of automatic encyclopaedic notability. Searching GNews and GBooks I can find no obvious sources that would provide evidence of the significant impact required under the GNG. The article has failed to improve since creation in 2008 and was previously raised for PROD, so raising for further discussion as improvement in the near future appears unlikely. Fæ (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The argument for deletion for the reason that he doesn't have notable or recognizable roles was well-refuted by the collection of sources shown, some of which should probably be added to the article. — GorillaWarfare talk 04:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, bit part actor. Stephen 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
suprisingly for all the claims made in the article linking it to ESPN, it only gets 1 gnews hit. [3] thus does not satisfy WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to 2010–11 Stevenage F.C. season. Does not have coverage that would not fall under WP:NOTNEWS. As for the rivalry, there is insufficient coverage demonstrating its notability. However, the match may warrant inclusion in Stevenage's article as an important event in their history. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable football match. Yes, it was a cup shock, but nothing too out of the ordinary (see Shrewsbury 2 Everton 1 for another example of a Premier League team losing at fourth tier opponents), and despite the claims of the IP that deprodded the article, it is not the first time a fourth tier club has beaten Premier League opposition by two goals - this happened when Brisol Rovers beat Derby 3-1 in 2002. Number 57 22:12, 12 January 2011 (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)) . |
Comment The idea that the match is notable in the history of Stevenage FC is irrelevant. By that token, all notable clubs could have a few matches notable in their histories, all of which could have articles. Thousands of new articles on fairly minor football matches. That's not what an encyclopedia needs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. This article is a directory of local agencies in charge of water, parking, sewage, etc in one US county. Most are nonnotable. Edison (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence of notability...no references since 2008 TeapotgeorgeTalk 21:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Luigi30 (Taλk) 02:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is offensive, to even on wikipedia give the notion that there are somehow 2 meanings to Blood Libel. That is patently false and serves as yet another example of conservative christians attempting to steal a piece of Jewish history. Palin's disgusting and idiotic use isn't worth the videoclip she uttered it in, yet alone putting it on Wikipedia. Come on Wiki, delet this BS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.153.8 (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless articles are now going to be predicitve, it should be deleted, as it gives as its basic definition "a U.S. political term popularized by former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin". One rarely popularizes a term in a single speech, and the fact that it's being discussed by some people doesn't mean it's popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.94.105.46 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to ever be worth an encyclopedia article. Palin used the term "blood libel" is a speech only today, sparking some minor criticism from some American Jews[7] and some support from others.[8] Palin didn't coin this term, and wasn't the first to use it the context of false accusations against conservatives after the 2011 Tucson shootings - that was Glenn Reynolds, and he noted others had used it before as well.[9]
Another term which Palin coined, "refudiate", received much wider media coverage but does not have an article here. "Death panel", another term she coined, only achieved notable status after its use spread nationally amongst others, independently of her usage.
Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Kelly hi! 21:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEO. 99.142.8.205 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to have a wikipedia entry for every word she creates or misuses? Delete.209.51.184.10 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obvious that the page is being used simply for propaganda purposes. Please delete.
Misusing a word that has existed for centuries cannot justify the birth of an alternative definition. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.3.97.133 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly propaganda - at the very least this should be a stub in the real article Blood libel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.10.170 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think that Sarah Palin has generated so much attention that for better or worse she has influence and her comments show how she intends to use it. This was a prepared remark, not an off the cuff comment. I think this will Wiki could be part of the Blood libel Wiki or part of a broader file about political discourse, and prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.100.103 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a significant page, and Phoenix Jones is already included on the page real-life superhero. All of these real-life superheroes have been mentioned in various news outlets, so I don't see a reason why this particular one should have his own article but not the rest. All the necessary information on this person is included at real-life superhero, or can be added to that page. Kag427 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totally unsourced and other than fairly normal academic achievements fails to state importance Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Everybody agrees that there is coverage but there's no consensus on whether or not the coverage is "significant". Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable blog that lasted for only two months and received passing media attention for a few days before falling into obscurity. Perhaps it is more appropriate to merge it with Dysfunctional Family Circus, but that's the farthest I believe it should go. ~jcm 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Little Busters!. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. Notability asserted but no reliable sources found either in English or in Japanese using spelling given in the article. Nothing helpful at ja.wikipedia. Request for help from WikiProject Anime and Manga resulted in original creator suggesting deletion. Plad2 (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Suga Mama (tour band). and deleting history. If someone wants to write a neutral sourced article on the subject then be my guest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any notability [12] or reliable sources to verify this article CTJF83 chat 19:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 02:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this out of userspace in 2009 because it looked close enough to notability. However, I never kept an eye on it and didn't realize the possible COI. The sources are very thin and notability very small. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any sources to show he meets the criteria for WP:NACTOR. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although "Christian" and "Republic" are both notable terms, and very important topics, the two of them together do not seem to create a notable topic for a WP article. It is possible to say "Christian republic" (and it is said fairly often) but there does not seem to be any consistent meaning, which is reflected by the state of the article. WP:Neologism and WP:Original research could also be invoked against this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea of "original research" is ludicrous, and not in line with our Wikipedia:no original research policy's concept. The idea that (mainly) 20th century scholarly analysis of 15th to 18th century thought by several of the most prominent thinkers of classical republicanism is "original research", and a novel hypothesis of any form, is so blatantly wrong that it almost makes one wonder whether you formed the conclusion that this was original research as a sheep vote to follow what was above, and tried to interpret the article to fit the preconceived conclusion.
Did you pick up a single one of the sources cited and check it against the article? If you didn't, you have no basis for even knowing whether this is original research, let alone stating that conclusion in an AFD discussion as if you had checked the content against sources to see whether they advanced the same conclusions. Try the book by Marcela Cristi, professor at the University of Waterloo, first. (There's a hint in the edit summaries that it's a good place to start.)
Did it not occur to you to wonder why Roscelese's rationale (to pick just one) stated things that simply weren't true about the article that you saw in front of you? Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal of the Christian republic is a particular sub-set of these. For example, in Europe a state church has often been associated with monarchical government, or at least constitutional monarchy, so is not exclusively republican. And many republican theorists would reject the idea of limiting their republic to a particular faith and might exclude religious 'interference'. The article needs better historical context and reference to theorists or a political movement advocating such a system and an explanation or exposition of their case. John Locke's comments cannot really be understood without knowledge of the Levellers and similar movements around the time of the English Civil War and Commonwealth a generation or so before he was writing. Whether the Levellers were Christian republicans may be a topic for discussion, but the case can be made, and indeed some would have seen the Commonwealth itself in those terms. For these reasons I don't think that the topic can easily be subsumed into another article because of the overlaps, and it certainly qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia in terms of importance. I don't think that the article on modern Christian Democracy will do as a home either, both because it is concerned with the modern political movement and is not necessarily republican, though there should be a cross-reference because there is a continuity of ideas. Yes to emphasising that the idea is more to do with political theory than religion, but then the distinction is precisely one that its advocates were trying to reject. AJHingston (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn, no remaining 'delete' votes. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet Notagbility criteria, specifically for creative persons. There is no indication that he 1)is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; 2)is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; 3)has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; nor 4)his work has (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable one-time event. Unfortunately, terrorist attacks occur every day. We can't have an article on each one. Nolelover It's football season! 18:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTADVOCATE, and possibly WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:NOT#OR. Already exists at May 2010 attacks on Ahmadi mosques in Lahore. Changed per Mandsford's reasoning below. Nolelover It's football season! 16:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there are more photographers from SC. Seems like a promo page, also violates WP:LC. — Timneu22 · talk 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns about notability are more in the form of a question than a statement, I don't see mainstream secondary coverage of this ag scientist, however, I'm less clear on the standards required to demonstrate notability based on scientific coverage via scholarly references (WP:ACADEMIC #1), particularly in different fields, see for example, [15]. Both of the refs I've included are primary but probably good enough to WP:V the existence of the guy, but I would like additional opinions on the notability question, etc. Thanks. j⚛e deckertalk 17:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC), especially not a Russian one - and I can find no reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this word must be in wikipedia At the moment I live in the town of Sitka and this word is widespread there - Y'all are tring to get rid of that Russian guy and i wanna support him. God damn he's right! Besides I wanna add that this word has not only a definition, but an etymology as well. In my personal opinion this is very important(94.24.208.20 (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I consider the article should be here - though it needs the completion. I will do my best to protect it. The author must find more info about the word to complete the article. I'll try to help him. Maybe i'll find something...(94.24.208.20 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person. She is an actress, and probably a good one. The article consists only of a list of jobs she has held. In her field this information is automatically given to us by the news media. That in itself does not really say anything about her and the article makes no assertion that she has any importance or influence besides just doing her job. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a total content fork to 2011 AFC Asian Cup. Every date information can be found on this article. There is no meaning to make a seperate article for schedule. Article is unsourced too. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Considered redirecting the article to Drum Mania but he is not mentioned in that article. Does not meet WP:BASIC. J04n(talk page) 15:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability questioned through PROD, but this seems worth discussing through AFD in order to assess community consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - either hoax or original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is pure original research--a novel mathematical theory. As far as I can tell it was created by a high school student, and has never been published. Wikipedia does not allow the publishing of original work per WP:OR. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The results of this theorem are easily verifiable. In a matter of minutes it can be confirmed that there are no errors. This article was published, although not in this exact form, in the magazine Prime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abadistheorem (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Due to the lack of any reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article he plays for Rajnavy Rayong F.C. in the Thai Premier League, which meets WP:NFOOTY but I have not been able to verify it. Unable to find any coverage of this individual, the article says he wears #10, but the Rajnavy Rayong F.C. page lists a Brazilian player with that number, the article does not give the Thai spelling of his name making a search near impossible. So, at this point the article falls far short of WP:BASIC. J04n(talk page) 14:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, non-notable work of fiction. The book is self-published by the user who uploaded the article (author's name and username are the same), and despite their assertion that having the book published at lulu.com and available for sale at Amazon is grounds for notability I can assure you (having done both myself) that it isn't. The book title and author's name gets precisely six unique hits on google, two of which are Wikipedia, two are lulu and the other two are amazon. roleplayer 14:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. only 2 comments, but this the subject is still very clearly not notable DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indications that this minor league and high school sports announcer and sportscaster meets the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any independent confirmation of this film - the web site in the article doesn't work and Google turns up nothing. Earlier versions of the article were already the subject of speedy deletes. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography; Sources is not enough to support its notability, since the artist is only making recognition online Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 08:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.
It seems this article was subject to puffery orchestrated by its PR department and repeated here on wiki, whether intentional or not. After weighing the strength of the various positions it seems fairly clear that consensus is to delete the article at this time. Before I go, here's a little something for User:AkankshaG for adding a massive wall of text which I just had to read in order to close this, only to find that it was largely unrelated to the discussion of the notability of this company and the suitability of this article on Wikipedia:Plip!
Article was created by Ciplex executive for promotional purposes. Recommended deletion per wp:coi wp:npov wp:soapbox Phearson (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This WP:BLP has been unsourced since 2004! The subject appears to be mid-level leadership (president of the party's Quebec wing) within a minor Canadian political party and who appears to have never won an election, a status that doesn't seem likely to meet most editors' standards of "inherent notability". There is a general lack of reliable, independent sources discussing the subject.[20] — Scientizzle 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. obvious consensus--lack of evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company with no secondary sources, edited by coi editor and his sockpuppet TeapotgeorgeTalk 10:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please check out: WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thanks. This is an outstanding article. One of the best written dictionary entry type articles I have ever read on WP. It is far better than most on Wiktionary. However it is still in violation of WP's not a dictionary policy. WP is not a dictionary of English, Arabic, or any other language -- no matter how important or interesting the word is. Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. This is turning into a policy debate: Is it sufficient to satisfy an SNG without satisfying GNG? Not my call here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found having searched in both English and Japanese. As request for assistance at WikiProject Anime and Manga has also come up blank with a suggestion of non-notability. Plad2 (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I won't bore you, it's fairly obvious on reading this which way it has to be closed. We can always discuss this again later, but this debate has failed to reach any consensus. Courcelles 23:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soewinhan: I agree that Criticism of Israeli government would be an okay title. It is certainly better than the current International criticism of Israel, because many significant critics are within Israel (peace movement, etc). Another variant would be Criticism of Israeli government policies, but maybe that is too verbose? --Noleander (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree the title should change to simply 'Criticism of the Israeli government'. Passionless (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a legal sense Israel has the same identity as Wikipedia, Federal Reserve, Jehovah's Witnesses (as a corporation), or any number of public personalities which at national levels are represented by the statutory corporation. By allowing the article, Wikipedia therefore seeks to allow a public setting out of the facts and legal reasons (see: cause of action) in any such process
That so few such articles exist in Wikipedia may suggest that although it is open for editing by anyone, the available material is not open for anyone to read, being subject to Wikipedia's own censorship Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and create articles on criticism of all sovereign nations. --Neptune 123 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm looking forwards to Criticisms of Saudi Arabia and Criticisms of Syria. I might decide they're all cruft and vote to delete them all. Not for the moment, though. Templar98 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are nowhere close to a consensus on this as far as I can see, so I'm breaking and relisting. Let's see if we can come to a conclusion this go around.
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is just a list of religion journals copied from an Excel file on the website of the Australian Research Council (ARC). The list is composed by the ARC, but the journals are further unconnected to the ARC (which does not seem to publish journals themselves). -- Crowsnest (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious notability and none of the sources appear to be reliable. Laurent (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for A7 but claims some notability, procedural nomination as a BLP. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subject material not notable (it's just one exhibition at a gallery that holds several each year). Contains much original research, cites no sources, orphaned for over two years NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software package. Coverage at t3n does not appear to amount to significant coverage, merely a blurb. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable software. One EL is the freshmeat page and the other EL simply quotes two sentences from the freshmeat page. Google returns a handful of single-paragraph results but they all appear to copy & paste either developer blurb or this article. There does not appear to be the in-depth discussion by independent sources which is needed to establish notability. bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a Google search on "linux petroleum accounting software" returns this first on the list and while a few other petroleum accounting packages are listed as well, if you go to their sites none of them have a Linux version and none are freeware. So being that this is the only Linux and only freeware petroleum accounting software would seem to be somewhat notable. The developer indicated that this software package was initially released in September 2010 so that may be why independent articles can't be found in the Internet yet.Skykt (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Won a Radio Disney contest, released an EP on a non-notable label. Sources are entirely tied to the winning of the contest, with no further notability beyond that. Borderline case, probably, but I'm tempted to say she just fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This entry is an opinion on artist, however, shows no premise to delete Jasmine Sagginario as a music artist. The article above states she has released an EP on a non-notable label...The album was distributed through Sony/Provident. Please see provided link below:
http://www.providentmusic.com/pgs/artists.details.aspx?ArtistCode=JASM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasminepedia (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Lin Biao. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability based on one event only - and even that appears to be based on speculation as to the possibility that she inadvertently alerted the authorities to her parents' plot against Mao. Subject is covered fully at Lin Biao. Also long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. Sources could be found if a decision is made to keep. Plad2 (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was closed as redirect before, but with only one person taking part. Closer has suggested it be renominated as a user is refusing to accept the outcome of the first AfD. I have no opinion on the notability GedUK 20:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep on the issue of "keep" vs "delete", no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Any OR issues can be dealt with through the normal editing process. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for deletion mainly because it is an article about a word, in violation of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A more serious problem is with WP:Living persons policies, since it in effect is labeling quite a number of people as being dishonest because they assume Cockney accents to play roles in movies or TV or for other reasons. The article was kept in 2005 but that seems to be mostly "I like it" votes without these issues being brought up at all. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is more than a dicdef and it is an encyclopedic subject. walk victor falk talk 23:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
person of questionable notability, only referencing in article makes no mention of subject WuhWuzDat 06:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was contested. Non notable. Fails WP:AUTHOR Nayvik (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for deletion back in December 2005 in the belief that the person was not notable. The person is now deceased. That fact does not itself make a person more or less notable, but it is still my belief that he was not and is not notable, and I think further evidence can be shown in that I find no non-Wikipedia references to him since from the time briefly after his death (which was, as far as I can see, only covered locally and not nationally). I think it's time to revisit the issue of whether the man actually was notable. My own opinion is delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit a lack of general knowledge in the field, but the article as written does not appear to show her as notable. Delete. (But I'd like to hear thoughts from people who actually know the field.) --Nlu (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus that the article meets the general notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Junior hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. His brother plays in the NHL, bur notability is not inherited. Dolovis (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dolovis (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable college student hilarity. E. Fokker (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sorry but having all your friends come here and say keep does not make you notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant autobiography. I did not see any links which provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why This article does little more than promote H66666666 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy contested, blatant advertising, no assertion of notability, ad copy sounds like it's right off the company Web site Wtshymanski (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PROF. E.g., no evidence of significant impact on the field or national awards. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Absolutely no sourcing to imply it passes WP:GNG, and no rebuttal to or allaying of the nominator's argument and issue. Ironholds (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable fashion trend. Searches returns a few literal results - ie. people using "gothic cowboy" as a nickname &c - but no substantial discussion of "gothic cowboy" as a fashion trend. bobrayner (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article because I loved the book, but in retrospect, I'm not sure if this particular edition is notable enough for its own article. What say you all? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While the "keep" !voters assert that there are many reliable sources available, they have not actually provided any that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but trivial, unsourced references. Obvious attempt to keep this material off the main Hal 9000 article. I have to wonder how the last version was considered "well referenced" when there wasn't a single reference on it... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—indopug (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a duplicate of a lot of pages that already exist with better sourcing and less original research. See Template:Nineteen Eighty-Four. Any useful content y'all happen to notice can be merged, but the article doesn't need to exist. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. Fails WP:USRD/NT. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable as a stand alone article. Suggest merger/redirection into List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. Imzadi 1979 → 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. Fails WP:USRD/NT. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable as a stand alone article. Suggest merger/redirection into List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. Imzadi 1979 → 01:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. If necessary, the history can always be accessed to smerge any content. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable as a stand alone article. Suggest merger/redirection into List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida. Imzadi 1979 → 01:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has value & potential for expansion. FieldMarine (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious notability. Minimal sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we now focus on the quite proper, deletion-policy-compliant, point that the nominator made, that sources already documenting this subject in depth don't exist; rather than on things that are irrelevant to policy, to our inclusion/exclusion criteria, and to an AFD discussion? Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established according to criteria for bands found at WP:BAND and is additionally not established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 01:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The independence of the DoD source is dubious; there is no other significant coverage by reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable non-profit. Fails WP:GNG and lacks significant coverage in any reliable sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. See WP:NOTCLEANUP. Per WP:GNG, it is not necessary that an article contain references to reliable sources; those sources must merely exist. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced search for: "Failure-oblivious computing" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Declined WP:PROD. PROD was removed several months ago, yet no attempt was ever made to fix the problems identified. Original PROD reasoning was "No sources or other evidence of notability." Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This begs the question "Why?". Why didn't you look at what Google Books brings up? It's not exactly hard to do, and it takes less time than it took to make the edit that I'm replying to here. You'd have seen for yourself that Phil Bridger was talking about one book out of many. Why did you take the zero-effort route? That's not what I'd expect from you.
The lack of interest in fixing things is endemic, by the way. It's not even confined to computing subjects — where, as noted, our coverage is nowhere near as good as it has traditionally been thought to be by observers. One could posit many reasons for it, but none are relevant to a deletion discussion of this article; nor are they rationales for deletion or evidence of anything except that Wikipedia writers don't write. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't what's bad about AFD. This is what's bad about expecting other people to do the writing and abusing AFD as a club, when that doesn't happen to one's satisfaction and volunteer editors don't jump when one shouts "frog!". What you've really exemplified, and quite badly, is what's wrong with some people's approach to a collaborative, long-term, writing project. Demanding that someone else make this better or I, whilst doing nothing myself, will try to tear down what other people have made so far is very wrong, and not only not the way that we intend to write things here, but also not the way that, over the past decade, most of our content has been written in practice. Go and look at the incremental evolution of the banana article over 9 years, from a 1 sentence stub with a single source to what it is now. Go and look at how long it took North Asia, an entire region of the planet, to expand.
Live with the fact that we're not finished yet, don't abuse deletion nominations as a way to whip writers into writing to your personal timetable, and don't decry a lack of effort whilst being the very no effort problem that you decry. Uncle G (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An unreferenced list of songs. While the songs themselves may be notable the list is not. Guerillero | My Talk 00:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:OR (by being an example of original synthesis), WP:RS (by relying substantially on blogs and other unreliable sources, though there are a few better sources present) and especially WP:NOTNEWS (by focusing on may passing mentions in news reports on an event that nobody will remember in a year's time. These animal deaths are not related, not exceptional or surprising, and not, in fact, generally mysterious - the incident in Beebe, Arkansas that started the media's brief obsession with reporting every such mass death has been well explained, though you wouldn't know it from the article. The existing articles Fish kill and Bird kill are more than enough coverage for Wikipedia's purposes. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This player seems to fall short of WP:Athlete because this person does not seem to have played any games in professional football. Andy4226uk (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Per lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grandiose claims; of course, google does give a bunch of hits since it's an online business... but is this notable? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non-notability, no references oldmankdude (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
article does not cite any references or sources and does not appear to meet notability guidelines Sjpanther (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Topic is basically original research and synthesis with no reliable source attesting to this as notable phenomenon that needs to be discussed in a separate article. meco (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable fictional character. Lacks credible sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLP which doesn't appear to be verifiable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous afd closed with speculation that sources exist but none were forth coming. This was a little webcast that was done with the early Slashdot folk and does not meet WP:N or WP:V. meshach (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable songwriter. 139 Bing/Yahoo hits, neither of which are very good. The one hit that had even the potential to save this article comes from a blog that admits its accuracy can't be vouched for--not nearly enough to be used as a source in a BLP. Blueboy96 23:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks. Content can be merged from the history as an editorial action. Sandstein 07:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like many of the pages for the Fighting Fantasy titles, this is simply unnecessary. All it does is recap the general information found on the backcover and in any good review. With the exception of a few core titles - such as Warlock of Firetop Mountain (the very first title) and House of Hell (soon to be a film), the remainder fail the notability test. There simply isn't anything else that can be added. Some fans have made attempts by adding trivia and even a map solution, but this is all very in-universe and not encyclopedic. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]