< 25 January | 27 January > |
---|
The result was redirect to Newfoundland and Labrador First Party. and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - feel free to ignore the WP:TLDR bit below if you have no interest in seeing how I reached this conclusion.
The article itself concerns the idea that people or organisations have a tendency to "blame Israel first"; that is, it is used by supporters to "imply that any particular criticism of Israel is just one more example of the tendency to blame Israel unfairly". The article was created by User:Mbz1 and nominated for deletion by User:Phearson a few minutes later. The nominator's rationale of "Possible attack page? I didn't CSD this, because it appears sourced and well written (for an essay anyway)" is not reflected in the comments by those advocating deletion, who (to broadly summarise) instead argue that the article constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and is inherently violating our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view; some also pointed out that as a collection of links and quotes (and nothing more) it was nothing more than a WP:COATRACK. Those arguing keep, on the other hand, counter these assertions, arguing that any WP:SYNTH problems and WP:NPOV problems can be fixed through normal editing.
It's rare to find an article that is inherently POV-y - that is, regardless of what is done to it, the very subject is POV - and there's little that can't be fixed with sufficient editing. The same is true of WP:COATRACK. The only exception, really, is situations where there are no sources covering the subject in such a format as to allow for a non-coatrack, or non-synthesis based article. Unfortunately that seems to be the case here; one submission is this, with the justification for its use as evidence being "As you could see it has 60 customers reviews, and all are 5 stars!". Somehow this failed to sway the argument; I can't see why. Many of the other things relied on are similarly inappropriate polemical or unreliable sources, as helpfully discussed by User:Unomi below. The end result is a debate with a clear consensus to delete, and that's the action I'm undertaking. I'll avoid going into my usual analysis of who posted useless !votes, because quite frankly, that'd take too long. Several people have mentioned the idea of merging the topic, or userfying it so it can be merged, or userfying it as an essay. I am opposed to the third option (Wikipedia's userspace is most certainly not for unrelated essays like this) but am perfectly happy to, for a small period, userfy the article for the purposes of including some of its content in other articles. I will expect whoever comes to my talkpage to have got some kind of consensus on the article in question that including this sort of thing is acceptable; failing that, I will not userfy it.
One thing worth mentioning is that the Israel-Palestine Wikishitstorm is subject to arbcom sanctions, which permit administrators to install and enforce discretionary sanctions on any editor in this area who, after being made aware of the decision, fails to adhere to our standards of conduct. Several editors contributing here have been made aware of the decision, including TFighterPilot, Mbz1, Crotalus_horridus, Quantpole, Johnuniq, Off2riorob, Brewcrewer, Chesdovi, NickCT, Marokwitz and Epeefleche (yes, I compared the entire AfD history to the enforcement and warning logs) but none of their behaviour here seems of the sort that would require further enforcement action. If people feel differently, they're welcome to leave me a message with the specifics on my talkpage, and I'll take a look at it. Until then, those people mentioned above should know that they are treading a thin line by contributing in an area they've already been warned over, and that some of the conduct here would certainly not be acceptable if repeated.
Thanks to all who read my little (hah) explanation. I'm open to any comments, plaudits, critiques or suggestions on my talkpage, as usual. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible attack page? I didn't CSD this, because it appears sourced and well written (for an essay anyway) Phearson (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec):::::::No, I did not do anything of above. I provided information on the background of the provided quote, and its author for a better understanding. The opinion was written by the author, who was introduced as "Stockholm-based Palestinian Alaa Kullab." The newspaper also specified it was written in response to this opinion. I have nothing to retract. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<!-- Please add your comments and/or vote to the TOP of this section (after this comment) --> <--- Please explain why you think you are entitled to tell other editors where to place their comments. And please sign your contributions [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC) -->
Extended content
|
---|
according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
wp:Synth states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research" There's nothing like this in the article. The conclusion was reached not by me and/or any other editors, who edited the articles, but by the sources themselves. Here are only few examples of the sources used and conclusions they reached
More examples could be presented by request. Thanks for reading--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
The result was delete. I am willing to provide the information in this article for anyone who cares to transwiki. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Rogue software, no indication of notability, no sources given. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable semi-professional sports team, fails WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. Only sources provided are not independent, thus fails WP:RS. Potential violations of WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:ADV as well. Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this article has stayed on Wikipedia for so long. It is a huge, unformatted directory with mostly just names and no descriptions or sources to back them up. Logan Talk Contributions 21:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Journalist - writer of no independent note and with no notable awards or associations. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced biography Snowman (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. (actually there is one source in the article but it barely mentions him) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "professional" wrestler autobiography. Only professional association is with the International Wrestling Cartel, a group whose article has previously been deleted for lack of notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software company. Has some mentions in Google Scholar, but they appear to be mostly primary (University of Szeged), and I can't access the sources themselves. (Related proposed deletion: SourceAudit and SourceInventory) Pnm (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn, but funny how I had to nominate it for deletion before anyone gave a rip... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woefully incomplete, link farm, no effort put into list. Deprodded with a tautological rationale. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and CSD G3 (vandalism). I've blocked the editor as well until they provide a commitment to not create further hoaxes.. Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoax. All the references, and the article's content, are WP:BALLS. What to do about the creator, who has confessed to creating "in-jokes" on Wikipedia before? Geschichte (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I contested a prod on this one as I thought it needed more scrutiny. He has released an album that reached #99 on the Billboard R&B albums chart - see Allmusic, but the only real coverage found was an article form the Press-Enterprise reporting his arrest on suspicion of murder in 2006. He has released at least three albums, so there may be offline coverage somewhere, but from what I've so far found, I don't think we have enough for an article. Michig (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While the !vote count leans toward Keep, the true policy backed consensus is for the article to be deleted. There haven't been any references presented thus far that show any form of notability for this article to be kept. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:58, 3 February 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)) . |
Deprodded with addition of "sources" which are both primary. No non-trivial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch your language, 10 pound, this is not a battleground but a forum to discuss your delete proposal. In any event, one option was for you to tag the article POINTING OUT that it needed more citations but, 10 pound, you chose to go for the Nuclear option instead. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
The result was keep. And rename to List of 1970s punk rock musicians or similar. Sandstein 07:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Twinkle messed up and left this part-done, so I hope it works OK). I wonder if this makes sense as a supportable list. While there was a "first wave" with sources out there, I can't find any key definition that would make the membership of various musicians objective, and no clear definition as to who was or who was not in the "first wave" - all we have in the article is "1975-1979", which seems arbitrary and is unsourced. If you look on the Talk page, the discussion is pretty much all people swapping their own OR/POVs. I think what we need in order to keep this article is a source that clearly defines the "first wave" in such a way as to make it possible to decide who was in it. Thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing to do is have lists of punk bands by decade (1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010). The second wave punk bands list is even worse off then this one. If done by decade, there is no POV pushing about sub sub genres. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article also violates WP:N. Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an essay (apparently writen by employees of Xerox) based on original research, as is outlined on its talk page. Removing the original research from the document would leave us with little more than a dictionary definition, so I propose that deletion is the best option. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The last comment was disregarded of course, but consensus is still that he is not (yet) notable for a Wikipedia article. NW (Talk) 16:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography wiht no evidence of notability. None of the refs are about the subject. Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.Cúchullain t/c 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article reads like an advertisement; strip away the promotional aspects, and I'm not seeing any solid WP:BIO material here. A related issue is some heavy WP:COI editing by the subject's webmaster on Hair restoration, Management of baldness, and several other related articles.OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me advise you, User RBernstein, to stop now. That way, when the actual Dr. Robert M. Bernstein gets into the office tomorrow morning, he might, just might not fire you for bringing him so much embarrassment by your behavior here. Or are you in fact the person your username implies i.e. Dr. Robert M. Bernstein? EEng (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to "Let me advise you...": I stand by that too. Either Dr. Bernstein deserves to be embarrassed (if he encouraged this editor to use Wikipedia -- employing Bernstein's name as a username, no less -- as a promotional forum) or Bernstein does not (if he didn't know what was going on). So for the good of Wikipedia at least, and possibly for that of Dr. Bernstein, I advised the editor to cut the crap.
EEng (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:N. Note that this character is only a main character ONCE, and basically never is notable again. Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Background: In perusing some old AfDs I participated in, I came across this unusual case. In the original AfD the result was a delete as the closing admin discounted the SPAs and "I've heard of him" calls. The AfD itself opened in 2005 under the old VfD naming convention, appears to have gotten lost, renamed in October, then had !votes trickle in from Jul-Aug of 2006, then closed in Oct by Guy. However, a keep-voter from the AfD removed the tag from the article, and for whatever reason the article was never actually deleted.
Present: Given the AfD's odd history and length of time since, it probably can't just be procedurally deleted now, so...where it is at is still the same concerns raised 5-6 years ago. Stanley gets a brief name-drop in a USA Today/Christians Science Monitor article about "godcasting" in general, but beyond that I see nothing reliable or significant in terms of coverage. The bibliography is long but none of the material sufficiently meets WP:AUTHOR Tarc (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Mandsford 15:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable game, A7 does not apply. No sources that indicate notability. — Timneu22 · talk 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow this article stay. This game means alot to people around the world and almost everyone in my community loves it. Please don't delete it! Please! I'm begging you!- tyler775
The result was speedy delete. G7 Ronhjones (Talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This label having produced zero albums to date is not yet notable. Also, of the references provided, #2 is not independent of the subject, #3 is a blog, #4 is the subject's Twitter site, and I don't recognize the link in #5, but sites ending in .ws typically aren't reliable in my experience. ArcAngel (talk) ) 13:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indications of notability. The only hint at notability is a notoriety inherited from an earlier establishment at the same address, but no sources can be found to verify that notoriety, and if sources could be found, the article should be written about the former notorious establishment rather than the current non-notable establishment. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was The author removed all content except the AfD notice, and I have speedy-deleted it under CSD G7 (One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nn puff piece Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Was tagged as a CSD, but it does have an assertion of notability. It did find this which seems to indicate that the airline existed, however it is unclear whether they still operate. Travelbird (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Travelbird (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Islamic funeral. NW (Talk) 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original research paper Travelbird (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever the problems with the article are, they can be fixed through editing, and are not a reason for deletion. The subject itself is significant and probably notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs); rationale was "A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
High school student that won a couple of school and student awards, however not nearly enough to assert real notability. Travelbird (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor road in Hong Kong. (see [19]. Not sufficiently notable. Travelbird (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted (G11) by OlEnglish. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable property development Travelbird (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actor that played a minor part in several episodes of a drama series in 1996. Doesn't seem to have played any roles since. Travelbird (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NN candidate for local office. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Travelbird (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly a hoax. Probably made up by a turkish fan. Mrromaniac (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The question here is not notablility, so however many reliable sources won't help. Our question is, is this topic unified enough as a concept to be encyclopedic? Unfortunately no. The article, as it stands, is inherently WP:OR. As Nipsonanomhmata mentions, the sources must show that such a well-defined concept exists. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinions / OR Travelbird (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are finding information which belongs in the article, and I will add it--it is not a reason for deletion. Note our Genocide article includes information on disputed instances, such as Sudan. You are now arguing that in order to be notable an alleged genocide must have been recognized as such by one or more other countries, but this is not existing Wikipedia policy.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find references supporting notability.... PRODed and PROD deleted without any enhancement or comment. Ariconte (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Lots of sources in the article, but there are either primary sources, places to buy their music, or websites that simply contain the word "unstable" in the title and have nothing to do with music. None convey any notability and I am unable to find anything better. VQuakr (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quote:"Lots of sources in the article, but there are either primary sources, places to buy their music, or websites that simply contain the word "unstable" in the title and have nothing to do with music."
Note:I also want to state to you that use of the link of where to buy the album was used to prove the validity that the album is sold on many markets, and sites, and wasn't just a home made ordeal, it's an album. It was unmarked (not listed as 'buy album') it was a source for editors to see, so they could see this was an officially distributed album, and it deserved coverage n the worlds encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Response:Okay that is very disagreeable. Plugging that an album is available is on every single wikipedia band page. That is completely different than saying 'support unstable', 'buy their albums' I don't know where some of the strange sources come from. The bands official webpage came offline on Sunday January 23rd 2011, although an official site should be considered a reliable source. What band doesn't sell their album on an official website? Because it's listed on the same page as information doesn't mean the source is being posted as promotional. It's the page the info came from.[reply]
Quote: "None convey any notability and I am unable to find anything better." Response: The encyclopedia of metal (Metal-Archives) is considered a reliable source for any metal band worth while. Why? The website is very picky about the bands listed, and do not list bands who don't qualify as metal, and bands with no notable releases. Spirit of Metal is the same exact deal. It is a reliable source to look up metal bands with actual releases. A bands official myspace provides a biography with information, album details, links to blogs that are direct from a band, ect. A good example is when you go to a bands wikipedia page and you see "According to the official myspace", however you argue that's not a reliable source... so question, should every article linking to a bands official myspace be deleted? The bands official facebook doesn't even provide room for advertisement. Unstable's is updates from the band directly, videos that evidence big show performances, and list the info used for the source. Use of OFFICIAL venue links to back up and create evidence of performances of big national shows, which the band has indeed played sound like reliable and necessary sources when claiming such things. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom.
Quote: "Same is true of Thomas John Stanford and their album and EP."
Their releases were released from a licensed independent label, a label that might not be Roadkill Records, however it has significance. Many bands on wikipedia have had releases exclusively on iTunes, which both albums are listed on. They have distribution in Long Island record stores, photo evidence can be supplied of the albums on sale. A band with more than out of house distribution holds significance. To say 'the same holds for their album/EP' is ridiculous. How do the pages self promote? The list the facts, the tracks, and the meaning. Why shouldn't an album written as a concept album be explained on wikipedia? Just because some album pages are blank doesn't make listing the concept and facts (who produced, ect) doesn't make it self promoting, and certainly doesn't discredit it's significance. The Thomas John page tells what a man who has traveled and played music around the world has done. His significance is that he's a solo artist with two upcoming albums (lil Eazy E, who's the son of Eazy E, and before he released an album, wikipedia had him listed a year before either of his albums were released, and listed one as upcoming)and the singer of his band. He indeed screams, raps, and freestyles, just like Kerry King uses a whammy in his guitar solos. It's only a statement of the mans work, not promotion. Look at any artists page, it says these things they're known for. No Clean Singing is proved reliable as an outside source of the band says he does these things on the album he's reviewing, so it's not just stated to make the performer look good. Coming from the slums of Brooklyn and growing up to be an accomplished and uprising artist, who earns a living in music, with a deal with a licensed independent label, sounds like a factual description of the man's history.
No listen, my main response is that this page is desired to be removed because Unstable is not signed to a major label. But here's the deal, the band had a presence in New York, and facts (such as a widely distributed album, that is being secured on other markets by the bands LICENSED independent label, and secured deals in other states, meaning this is not just a 'made it at home' album by a local band) show the band doesn indeed have significance. And with those facts stated, why aren't a lot of bands removed? The only thing that was correct was improper use on one source within the entire article.
Outside of that, what good reason could you have to take the page down than a personal vendetta? -Makk3232 (not logged in before)
7.Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Response:Well give me a way to show verifiability. . .In Long Island the band's following is a result of playing multiple styles of music, like it's a gimmick, like KISS with the face paint, they play a bunch of styles of music. That honestly what there known for. I mean if you listen to there songs its heavy, than the guys rapping, then screaming, I mean c'mon I can't make this stuff up it's in the music. The point is they've built a following, and a label, and there self driven success because they have a following otherwise how, and why would the band waste its time and effort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quote:"Unable to find independent reliable coverage of this band. Per nom, most sources provided are primary and/or self-promotional. The only source that I thought might be promising is metal-archives.com but in taking a closer look - that site accepts self-submissions. Cannot find any passing criteria for this band at WP:Music."
Response: Disagreed and addressed in the previous entry.
Among the sources in the Unstable article is links to a Newspaper interview, Radio appearance, major venue pages in which the band has played and is featured upon the website. (Photos, aka evidence of performance showing it's not some 'claim' making it a necessary, a primary outside the band website, reliable, and and NOT self promotional). I must ask again, where in the world do you see the grounds to call any of the sources self promotional? They in no way promote the band. The use of the album pages (such as amazon link and other store link) where the album is sold was only added as a source to verify that the album is distributed on numerous markets and not 'burn it at home' album. If that use was seen as self promotional I guaranteed it was not the intention.
Because Cricket, yo obviously don't take the time to read before posting I'm reposting my original response to your bogus claim. "The encyclopedia of metal (Metal-Archives) is considered a reliable source for any metal band worth while. Why? The website is very picky about the bands listed, and do not list bands who don't qualify as metal, and bands with no notable releases. Spirit of Metal is the same exact deal. It is a reliable source to look up metal bands with actual releases. A bands official myspace provides a biography with information, album details, links to blogs that are direct from a band, ect. A good example is when you go to a bands wikipedia page and you see "According to the official myspace", however you argue that's not a reliable source... so question, should every article linking to a bands official myspace be deleted? The bands official facebook doesn't even provide room for advertisement. Unstable's is updates from the band directly, videos that evidence big show performances, and list the info used for the source. Use of OFFICIAL venue links to back up and create evidence of performances of big national shows, which the band has indeed played sound like reliable and necessary sources when claiming such things. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom. " -Makk3232
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP with 2 days left on a BLP prod. If someone wishes to source this article I'll be happy to restore it and reopen the AFD Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. No WP:RS to establish WP:N. He's nothing more than a guy who opened his checkbook five times and paid notorious vanity press iUniverse to print five "books." As WP:SPS, they cannot be used to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that it is questionable whether this individual college library is actually notable, the article is entirely original research Travelbird (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased film of questionable notability. The only sources provided are a forum and a promotional website. Travelbird (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More reference have been added, please review before deletion to determin if this page can be saved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remy.range (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources to indicate that this term is used and is notable. All the citations are to sources within the Wikiproject. —Ute in DC (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Mandsford 13:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, promotional biography. Only claim to notability is as the author of a "national bestselling book" although no citation can be found to support that claim. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:46, 18 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)) . |
KEEP Beyond all of her other accomplishments, Diana West’s book Defining your Own Success: Breastfeeding After Breast Reduction Surgery’’ is the definitive text on the subject for the worldwide lactation community. For that reason alone, I would expect her to have a page on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.103.188 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — 67.174.103.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP http://www.llli.org/books/bfar.html
KEEP http://www.llli.org/NB/NBNovDec01p222.html
KEEP http://www.llli.org/NB/NBJulAug08p27a.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.103.188 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — 67.174.103.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Diana west has made a huge impact on the lives of countless families with her books and her support of breastfeeding after breast reduction. I may be doing this all wrong, but I just want to support keeping this page up. It seems to me what needs to be defined in some way is the value of the information in her books; what she has written. There are lactation reference books available, and Ms. West's are part of that group. Many La Leche League Leaders keep the book Making More Milk for the mothers that show up to their support meetings. IMO what has made her books so valuable and worthy of a page here is the successful intervention they have effected in many struggling nursing dyads. Does the voice of the mother she helps need to get much louder to be heard? I do not claim to know Diane West, but I think Wikipedia would be remiss to leave out such a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinamoon (talk • contribs) 06:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Rinamoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I can certainly understand your questions about my validity. You’ve never heard of me, probably because you haven’t breastfed personally or you don’t have kids who are breastfed. Or breastfeeding went easily for you or the women in your life. In my field of lactation, though, I’ve have become increasingly well-known over the last 15 years as a leading expert through my publications and lectures because my work has been helpful to breastfeeding women and professionals all over the world. I'm pretty down-to-earth and never make a big deal about it, so, as you can imagine, to have it come into doubt is really surreal.
Interestingly, the book that seems to be best establishing my credibility here is my least known, but it certainly was seminal. Defining Your Own Success: Breastfeeding after Breast Reduction Surgery was the first book to discuss this topic of breastfeeding after breast surgery and to encourage women to breastfeed even when they didn’t have full milk supplies. Although it is ten years old now, it is still the only and best resource on this topic. The review from the Journal of Human Lactation substantiating this fact has already been posted. In 2008, I co-authored with a plastic surgeon, Breastfeeding After Breast and Nipple Procedures, a more extensive clinical monograph for health care professionals addressing and expanding the topic. It was very positively reviewed by the International Lactation Consultant Association,[1] publisher of the Journal of Human Lactation. The accompanying website I created, Breastfeeding After Reduction, was recommended in the most recent edition of the popular What to Expect When You Are Expecting book.[2]
My last two books have been even more successful. The Breastfeeding Mother’s Guide to Making More Milk, by McGraw-Hill[3] is very highly regarded because it was a landmark book -- first ever on the topic of low milk supply and very helpful to many women and lactation professionals. It is ranked highly on Amazon. It was very positively reviewed by the International Lactation Consultant Association,[4] publisher of the Journal of Human Lactation. There are many blogs and websites raving about Making More Milk,[5] including People Magazine’s online blog.[6] It is recommended on About.com,[7] Suite 101,[8] and Blisstree.[9] This book has been referenced four times in the landmark 2010 lactation textbook, Breastfeeding Answers Made Simple by Nancy Mohrbacher.[10] [11] [12] [13] It was included as a top breastfeeding reference book in the 2009 edition of 25 Things Every Nursing Mother Needs to Know by Kathleen Huggins and Jan Ellen Brown, published by Harvard Common Press.[14]
My most recent book, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, 8th edition, by Ballantine Books, a division of Random House,[15] is selling exceptionally well (regularly ranked under 1,000 on Amazon), not because it was already a well-known title from previous editions, but because my co-authors and I completely rewrote it from scratch, expanded it, and brought it into the 21st century with a contemporary, humorous tone. It is the first time it has been published by a true publishing house and it was the first time the authors were credited – which was done because our names are well-known it helps to sell the books. It was a national bestseller in July 2010 in USA Today, the first breastfeeding book to reach this pinnacle.[16] The reviews have been outstanding, clearly establishing it as a leading resource for breastfeeding mothers (Motherwear blog, July, 2010[17]; Breastfeeding Moms Unite blog[18]; Strocel blog[19]; iVillage[20]; and many more). It was listed as a must-have product for new mothers on Pregnancy 360, in Pregnancy Magazine’s website.[21] The professional review by the International Lactation Consultant Association is currently in press and will appear in the next issue.
To address the question about my not being lead author, I'm second only because we had three equal authors and drew straws to see who would be listed first -- it's definitely not that I contributed less that the first listed author. The article that we wrote, Tinker to Evers to Chance in Breastfeeding Today, January, 2010, discussed our writing process.[22]
The Breastfeeding Mother’s Guide to Making More Milk and the 8th edition of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding were pictured in a photo layout in Pregnancy & Newborn magazine in the August 2010 issue, picturing the most popular books for new mothers.[23]
I've written many articles for large-circulation magazines (Essence Magazine, Lead Article: Maximising Milk Production for Your New Baby, January, 2008; Essence Magazine, Lead Article: Breastfeeding After Breast Surgery, November, 2005[24]; New Beginnings Magazine, Lead Article: How to Get Your Milk Supply Off to a Good Start, July-August, 2005 (co-authored with Lisa Marasco)[25]; Mothering Magazine, Lead Article: The Good News About Lactation After Breast Surgery, October-November, 2004[26]; New Beginnings: Making More Milk, April, 2009[27]; New Beginnings Magazine: Ten Nursing Pitfalls, May, 2009[28]; New Beginnings Magazine, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, Excerpt from Chapter Three: Birth!, October, 2009[29]; one of my articles was translated into German in Stillzei Magazine, August 2006; Leaven Magazine, Lead Article: Breastfeeding After Breast Reduction Surgery, August-September, 2002. I am quoted by many others, including Fit Pregnancy.[30]
I am frequently interviewed on radio shows, including recently on Dr. Radio on August 10, 2010. A podcast was recorded of an interview of me for Motherwear’s Breastfeeding Blog[31] and The Vicky and Jen Radio Show.[32]
My publications have led to invitations to lecture all over the world at international conferences (Australia, Austria, Israel, Spain, Taiwan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada), where only the most prominent leaders in the field are invited, plus hundreds of locations in the US. My visit to Malaysia was announced in their popular Pa & Ma magazine.[33]
I was the Director of Professional Development on the Board of Directors of the International Lactation Consultant Association[34] and the Monetary Investment for Lactation Consultant Certification because of my reputation, publications, and leadership abilities. I'm currently an editor for Clinical Lactation,[35] a peer-reviewed journal, which is no small feat.
I'm definitely not the same person as the Diana West who is the political commentator, but I'm pretty well-known in my own right among mothers and lactation professionals and am quite widely published as my credentials clearly validate.
I hope these citations have helped to clearly establish my credibility. If anything further is required, I will be pleased to provide it. In closing, please let me commend you all very highly on your integrity and critical analysis of the information on Wikipedia. I use it often, but have never seen the development side. I’m deeply impressed and will trust information I read on it even more now. Thank you for your time and devotion to this tremendous worldwide resource. Athena88 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Diana West, IBCLC[reply]
The result was redirected to Skip Hollandsworth. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article because it cannot be renamed using the move function, due to there already being a Skip Hollandsworth article. There are no links to this article because the surname "hollandsworth" isn't capitalized. The correct article Skip Hollandsworth is the article other pages are linked to, not this orphan. — Ztejasdurango · talk 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was changed to redirect; non admin close. — Timneu22 · talk 11:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable show. No sources that indicate notability. No speedy reason for this. — Timneu22 · talk 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Found this with an alternate spelling (Freshta Sama) that I am fairly sure is the same person but the mention is much to trivial to approach the criteria of WP:BASIC. Perhaps there is significant coverage in Persian? J04n(talk page) 14:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources, I suspect that this is a hoax. The article's creator only edit on Wikipedia was the creation of this article 5 years ago. His age does't match well with the text, born in 1963 and a music producer in the 1970s? J04n(talk page) 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This articled had been reviewed yet and sent to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Valery Nikolayevsky. Then it was immediately recreated by the same User:Jahggy whose contribution makes it quite clear that this user is Mr. Nikolayevsky himself or somebody very close to him. As a sysop of Russian wiki I had deleted the same self-promotional material after detailed investigation of Russian-language sources so that I may insist that this author has absolutely no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article provides way too much detail on these fictional tribes than is appropriate for Wikipedia. It really belongs in a role-playing wiki. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
only self-published sources provided for notably: WP:Notability Grey Wanderer (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biography, tagged as unsourced since August 2010, a monography which reads like an agent's blurb. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP who left the following message on the talk page:
There's already a category specifically for programs relating to TV programs shown in the Philippines, so why is there a need for an article about it?
If the reason behind this is to create an article listing programs that has no article in Wikipedia, then I think that's an invalid reason. If there is no article regarding a program, then one must be created for it.
A TV show article with a lengthy details enables others to verify that such program does or might have existed. As such, anyone could add a TV program to this article and clarify just by saying that "it's real" or that they've "seen the program," regardless of the fact that it might be fictitious.
Likewise, I've never heard of the program Alaska Mini-Programa even though it is listed in this list. It doesn't mean that such program did exist but there's also no proof of reference that such show exist. If such program does exist, more details can be added to it creating an article about it.
The listing of shows for certain TV stations are far more accurate and more specific that this listing. Editors of those articles were able to manage to create listing with references and/or create articles pertaining to a TV show. Though, I find it, at times, irksome when editors tend to remove citation requirements that I add whenever there is no verification attached to unlinked programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.168.178 (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy upgraded to PROD, PROD tag removed. Wikipedia is not a textbook. The tone and style is inappropriate for Wikipedia. If this article is not entirely WP:OR, it is redundant with the pertinent sections of AC power. This almost reads like a translation of a thesis. I am unable to verify the sources given as I don't read any Cryllic. It's an impossible search term or link name. We also have an article Transmission line which is a better place to talk about distributed parameters. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a particularly notable individual. His professional baseball career lasted seven games, his acting career, while existent, does not strike one as "article worthy" and the fact that he was traded for beer, though it is a good factoid, does not in itself merit an article. Alex (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Johann Gottfried Piefke. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just an article on a word used in German. No indication of any special importance or interesting history. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]