The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of secondary sources to indicate notability under WP:CORP, edit log indicates creation by company — Preceding unsigned nomination made by Burn37 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)— Burn37 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small town Mayor. The only coverage that seems to exist is brief "news in passing" stories in the local newspaper about the Mayoral race. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No evidence of getting near meeting the notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Small town Mayor without coverage in third party sources. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there are sources indicating a notability outside the elected position, this subject appears non notable. Stormbay (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G10 as attack page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in question. Completely unsourced. thesimsmania 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by creator. Mayor of very small town (population 6k) who fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG Valenciano (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N, WP:V as it has no secondary sources. Fails WP:NOTDIR. Non of the routes listed have any notability. This is not a likely search term for a redirect and the target page would itself be non-notable. Charles (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate list of information leading to dozens of external internet sites and few wikipedia sites Jax 0677 (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was move to incubator, with the standard reminder that it can't just sit there if better sourcing doesn't materialize. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Movie clearly lacks notability. JoelWhy (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Madras_Christian_College#Halls. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the college Hostel for students and is purely based on its website and blogs. The notability of the topic is in question due to its lack of coverage, which is in contrast to the fact that its location Chennai is a metropolitan city. I propose Deletion of the article and merging any useful content with the parent article Madras Christian College ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Person is not note-worthy, article is not sourced, possibly autobiographical. Filmoliver (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He does seem somewhat noteable for directing the SpongeBob SquarePants series, maybe the article needs improving? I mean look at these sources http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1294130/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1294130/news thesimsmania 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
High school band director, fails WP:BIO, not notable Downwoody (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Longevity claims. Kubigula (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from more specific considerations such as WP:BLP1E (his alleged notability stems from maybe being the oldest person in the world but probably not) and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this individual does not seem to meet the general guidelines of WP:N. Specifically, I do not see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. He seems to have had a brief burst of attention in May 2008 for his age and nothing since, meaning he lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish him from thousands of other individual claiming (falsely or otherwise) to be very old. Canadian Paul 19:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Whiplash (band). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Musician who has no notability outside of the band he played for, namely Whiplash. None of the other members of that band have their own articles and just because the drummer filled in on drums with Slayer once or twice doesn't make him notable enough for a separate article. Should be deleted or at least redirected to the Whiplash article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barely referenced; no indication of independent notability per WP:CRIME apart from the crime family of which he was a member. I can find some passing mentions of him online, but no significant coverage from WP:Reliable sources. Scopecreep (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barely referenced; no indication of independent notability per WP:CRIME apart from the crime family of which he was supposedly a member. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Scopecreep (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced; no indication of independent notability per WP:CRIME apart from the crime family of which he was supposedly a member. I can't find a single mention of him online: possible WP:HOAX. Scopecreep (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. - filelakeshoe 18:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never played for a fully professional league, fails WP:NFOOTY. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 17:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Vampire Kisses (series). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as non-notable and redirect to Vampire Kisses (series) as pursuant to discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ellen_Schreiber_(2nd_nomination) (the author of the series, where it has been established that the author and individual books are not notable, but the series as a whole is borderline-notable). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 17:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLPPROD declined because a primary source was in the article (an IMDB link), though even the PROD decliner admitted that no reliable sources were in the article. Article has an IMDB link and nothing else (no reliable sources), and is a BLP. pbp 17:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)The result was Speedy delete (G11: Unambiguous promotion)
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. West Eddy (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can be restored for purpose of transwikification if somebody wants to do that. Sandstein 17:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing deletion and transwikifying to Wikiquote. There's even an article there waiting to receive non-duplicate content. I have half a mind to be bold and do this as unilaterally as possible, but I admit this is a decent article and this AfD is likely to draw some opposition. The issue is not that this a particularly bad article, just that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. See under WP:NOTDIR, which states that Wikipedia is not for "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Also refer to WP:LONGQUOTE ("Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations").
Furthermore, there has been previous interest expressed in this move, such as in the first AfD for List of misconceptions and in the article's own talk page. Inclusion of List of misconceptions seems, to me, the most obvious counterargument, but the simple fact is that that article is not in a format explicitly named in policy as inappropriate for Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a discussion of a single specific paper, rather than a broad discussion of relevant literature on the topic. As such, it is not notable. West Eddy (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect.
I am no stranger to closing contentious AFDs, so I am happy to volunteer here.
By my count, there were thirty-nine !votes by anon IPs or newly-made accounts with few or no other edits. These are generally discounted in the closing of AFDs because such participants tend to be unaware of the various notability requirements that have been developed by Wikipedians through our experience of trying to build an encyclopedia.
Of the remaining !votes, nine are to keep (some "weak" and some "strong"); thirty-seven are to delete (again, with various degrees of strength and urgency); five are explicitly for moving or merging; and thirty-two are to redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. The move/merge voters and the redirect voters generally enunciate the common idea that this title is by itself innocuous, and that the subject of the title, although not independently encyclopedically notable, warrants mention in the campaign article (where it is, indeed, mentioned at this time). Furthermore, the arguments for deletion tend to be directed towards the content of the article, as opposed to any import of the title. It is uncontroverted that the word "Forward" is in fact an "Obama-Biden campaign slogan". Similarly, although the anon and new user keep votes might not reflect policy, the underlying theme generally expressed in those votes is that the information regarding pundits and commentators criticizing the selection of the word, "Forward" should be included in the encyclopedia. The function of conveying information is served just as well by discussion in a section in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 as it is in a separate article (perhaps better, because it can then be read within the context of the entire campaign). A redirect will be picked up in Google searches, and will allow readers seeking information on the slogan to find the place in the encyclopedia where such information can be found. The slippery-slope argument that having such a redirect opens the door to NPOV redirects is belied by the existence of RfD processes specifically geared towards eliminating improper redirects.
Because there is a clear consensus against having a separate article at this title, but no consensus against maintaining the redirect, I make the following determination. The overall result of this discussion is that the current content of the article should be deleted, and the title redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. As to the content (which has shifted considerably over the duration of this discussion), that is a matter to be hashed out on the talk page of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by CerpherJoe (talk • contribs) — CerpherJoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help); External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help); External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help); External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help); External link in |publisher=
(help) —Northamerica1000(talk) 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help); External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help); External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help); External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help); External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(help); External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)— A newsblog source((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)Research for the closing Administrator. The "Forward" slogan currently appears on the pages below. 5Q5 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Anon IP opinions discounted. bd2412 T 16:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-major event, not even counted on sherdog.com. Does now meet minimun notability requirements. Luchuslu (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. The article was a copyright infringement. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The game is notable, but there is no indication that this very specific element is in any way notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This could be a worthy entry, but at present there is no sign of notability. West Eddy (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help) (subscription required)((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help) (subscription required)((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help) (subscription required)The result was Speedy keep. Non-admin closure. I am withdrawing my nomination. Thanks for all of your for finding sources and adding them to the article, I am glad we could move forward.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unsourced BLP article on a living person, an actress. I added the only reliable source which refers to the list of films she starred in. I was not able to find any sources for other details of her bio (though one of the references points out to a collection of local newspapers and non-reliable websites), and, what is most important, I was not able to establish the notability, for example, any reviews of her film participation or any discussion of her concerts or whatever. Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete bd2412 T 17:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find any indication of notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability issues. Additionally page has had one unsourced line since 5 August 2011. This page should be deleted or at a minimum redirected to Category:Leaders in various Latter Day Saint denominations or Latter Day Saint movement.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: The article explain that "green light" is jargon or slang for approval and mention instances where this is the case. This purpose doesn't warrant an article and it should therefore be deleted. The article has no prospect of being improved rather than deleted. The article has no content that isn't mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia and can therefore be deleted without merging. The original purpose of the article and its description in the disambiguation page is for its meaning in motion picture production, but there is no need for a stand-alone article for this more narrow purpose either.—Suggested action: If a consensus for deletion is reached the article should be redirected to the disambiguation page Green light.—Relevant guidelines: Style manual: "minimize jargon", "do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader, when more common alternatives will do". The term "green light" can be replaced with more common alternatives and should be avoided in articles. I've replaced the term with more common alternatives in the articles that were previously linking to the page (primarily articles about motion picture production, they can be found in my change log). Wikipedia is not a dictionary: A stand-alone article for this jargon term has the nature of a dictionary entry. In case of motion picture and baseball the meaning of the term is explained in filmmaking and baseball glossary. Merger guidelines: "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." "If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." This applies to this article. (It also applies to the article start date (that's linked from this article) that can with advantage be taken care of in conjunction with this article since they fall under the same topic.) Notability: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The article has two references, one is the definition of "green light" in encyclopedia.com, the second is a (broken) link to a page about a TV series about TV production called Project Greenlight. These sources do not address the subject directly in detail. No original research: "You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The sources don't meet this requirement.--John S. Peterson (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, unreferenced and not noteworthy Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep bd2412 T 18:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly self-published sources; written by paid group account sockmasterr User:Expewikiwriter, who is known to abuse sources, meaning we can't even trust the presented facts without independent verification of them; only claim of notability - their use in a commercial and in television shows - are cited to a blog and uncited respectively, and, even if true, does not, in fact, show sufficient notability for the requirements of WP:BAND. Article was previously deleted for lack of notability; things haven't changed with the recreated version. 86.** IP (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a campaign of self-promotion, where machine translated articles have been created in no, sv, da, and en.wikipedia.
The subject does not meet any criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people). There are a couple of self-published sources, but there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Much of the article is clearly incorrect or a hoax – the Royal Palace in Oslo is supposed to be her permanent residence, she is supposed to have received a “silver medal of honor given by former President of Austria Rudolf Kirchschläger during a state visit”, etc. Kjetil_r 12:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Norwegian version was the original version and it stayed there for quite a while. It was never problems with it but because in Wp everybody add something, delete something and something is happening all the time, the Norwegian version lost more and more till even the info box was was just a picture. Then it was deleted so I did not add them because I though you guys would think like the two Norwegian admins.
The truth is however she is not self publishing at all. MISOLIMA Publishing is about one year old and because it has only two books (will have all five books about Bonnie and Clyde) it does not make it less a publisher. It seams to me that this issue has got out of hand already and there is no point in wasting time with this, not for you guys that might have families to take care of and not only spend time in the front of the computer so I suggest just delete what ever you want because I realize something over the past few days, but since it's 1st of May today, Google's Knol encyclopedia is moving to wordpress.com and from tomorrow morning it's live. We will see how much easier it will be to publish something there for users like me that are not so clever as you guys. Enjoy your Wikipedia METC4F (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. The Norwegian castle has about 100 employees and about 10 lackey's but not all live at the castle, but many people do because it must be 24h service. People that lives there permanently is about 20 and there is also another book written about the same subject named "Kammerpiken" but if people don't believe it's true then what can I do? She was registered in Folkeregisteret with address Drammensveien 1 which is the Norwegian Castle and in fact me and several of her Facebook friends did visit her there in the 70's and we even spent one New Year there. Only because some feels it sounds untrue it does not mean it is. Read her book "Sølvkammerbetjentens lakei" and you will see it is true and you will know that she knows more noble people than any one of you guys do. That's just part of life when you work and lives at the castle. I would guess in UK there must be far more than 100 people working at Buckingham Palace and all of them have a story to tell if they want or can? Right? METC4F (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for posting this here but I thought it might help to make Wikipedia better and I also need to take up this matter with the Norwegian Wikipedia, because this might be a serious misuse of power by a person with administrator rights. What I say here is all true, and in fact VERY true. It's about, let me say one with the name starting with "O" who is an administrator in the Norwegian Wikipedia and the story is not something I "think" or "guess"... it is really based on facts. We (not just I) are a bunch of geeks that has enough computer and server experiences that goes back 30 years in time, so hopefully we knows what we are doing as we never give up until we find the answer for what ever we are searching for. Anne always says "If you don't know what the problem is, then you can't find the answer". It is as simple as that.
Now what we found out and got evidence for, is that this Mr. "O" that got Administration rights here and in the Norwegian Wp, in fact knows Anne and the strange thing about this is that he knows her too well (Anne does not know him though). That does not mean they are friends, oh no because what this is all about is a very deep x-family matter. Mr. "O" is good friend with a VERY, VERY CLOSE relative to Anne's X which she divorced from 25 years ago and Mr. "O" is being dragged into this old family matter and wants to "help out" by deleting everything about Anne on Wikipedia.
And it's here the story begins, because what happens when a couple get divorced and the relationship ends in such way that they never get friends again? and where the other part does not even want to speak with Anne, even if Anne is more than happy to speak, but the other person just don't want? Well this is what's happen... YOU GET DELETED FROM WIKIPEDIA... because when the x-relative of Anne has a friend that happen to be Administrator in Wikipedia, then it's also so easy to tell him to delete everything about her with a big "HA HA HA" if you know what I mean?
I was really wondering why everything about Anne was deleted in such a speedy way on the Norwegian Wikipedia by Mr. "O", and why even things that had nothing to do with the books was deleted in no-time, no questions asked??? The fact is that even issues where the governments, that works with Anne, was also deleted claiming "advertising", when the facts are that if you invest in something huge and the governments works with you, then this is not advertising but public information. At least, it is not for economical gain because simply the information did not have any economical value at all. But it was deleted anyway, and it does not really matter now, but the sad part is to now know why it was deleted because we meant to live in a highly democratic world here in Wikipedia. What I mean with "sad" was just that Mr. "O" has misused the trust given to him by Wikipedia in letting him become an Administrator, with the result that not only the Norwegian Wikipedia was wiped out for EVERYTHING about Anne and what ever she does, leaving nothing behind... but also the Swedish and Danish. I think this will make the grounds for a new book or an article in the main papers beside the one or two papers Mr. "O" is working for, because as said when I started this text, I think this case can help to make Wikipedia even better. I know some would come and say, this in not the point, and I know that, but remember this was not only about the article about Anne, it was so much more than that and it's now more a principle than anything else.
I'm not here to shoot myself in the foot, but for Mr. "O" that likes to play Chess in real life, this time it's my turn to say "sjakk matt" (in Norwegian) to you. Don't forget that Mr. "O" has followed me where ever I've been on Wikipedia for the past week or so and had everything about Anne deleted and he is now trying to do the same in both the English and French Wikipedia as well, not because what's written is wrong, but because his been dragged into a family problem going back 25 years... His way to do it, is to first delete some, then more and then flag the page and questioning everything what's written, he try to make the author look like a fool, then more Norwegians comes in as say "delete" and finally it ends up deleted because one are following the other... THE END METC4F (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC) (edited) METC4F (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that everybody that says DELETE is from Norway... and good friends of Mr. "O" as well, same people, same faces... I agree it is pathetic, no doubt about that. Protecting each other is normal for good friends. METC4F (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Sjö is also friend of Mr. "O" and was part of the team that deleted the Swedish version and I agree that it was OK to delete the Swedish and the Danish version as well because I could see that my Swedish and Danish was not so good as I thought, but could been corrected if Mr. "O" did not jump up and down about having it deleted.
So what this is all about is "I tell a friend to come here to post DELETE"..." How many more friends will be sent to this page to say Delete? For user Dawn Bard I just say, being Norwegian is not a problem at all as I'm Norwegian myself, but the problem here is that Mr. "O" is dragged into a very old family matter via an x-family member of Anne which happens to be a good friend of Mr. "O". It is clear he want to "help" her by deleting everything about Anne from Wikipedia. He have successfully deleted everything from the Norwegian Wp which is every link or anything in relation to Anne. So it's not about delete or not delete, I could not care less, but it's about Mr. "O" has breached every rule of being a Wp administrator, which is a shame for the whole Wp project because it just shows that "do you hate someone? or know someone that does not like a person? Is he or she on Wp? Become a Wp administrator or just ask an existing administrator on Wp to delete everything about that person". That's what this is all about and that's what happened here. Mr. "O" and his friends deleted all subjects and references to Anne in the NoWp in one day. The question is, was it for the good of Wp? Off course not.
Mr. "O" has also articles on Wp based on his own promotional game with so to say zero references, they are short and are not even marked as a stub and if you ask me? Oh yes... he's an admin and can do so without having them deleted? They are purely there to promote his name and his book work. It's easy to see by Google his name, where most results are posted by himself on various websites - a typical self-publisher, because even his own book is not sold by a publisher anymore. He bought the unsold books to try to sell them himself from worldpress.com. To do so, he created various articles in Wp that only points to his book. It's an "bypass" and his self-promoting articles has no value what so ever, beside the fact that he hope to sell some of his books that he got in stock. Anne is in fact more then books, electronics and software as she is maybe most know for her herbs and creams sold under the brand MiroHealth and are exported worldwide. But the fact of life is still that we could live without Internet before so why is references on the Internet suddenly so bloody important? Is it impossible to live without it? or is it so that a person that don't find Internet so important no longer have any rights, like "if you're not visible on the Internet, then we don't believe you?" - you can perfectly well be both rich, famous and noble without Internet. How many people got the Noble Price that was not heard of before they actually got it? METC4F (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the bad weather in Norway that makes the Norwegians to come here to post Delete? :) METC4F (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bwilkins says "All of VISA, Amex, Mastercard...they must be the same company, right?" Good one but in fact when you register for a credit card you also ending up in a database that says "declined" so it's recorded for all other credit card companies to see when you apply again. So here instead of saying "declined" the Norwegian jungle telegraph are saying "delete".
But when it comes to IP there could be many users on the same IP which is the case of say a Norwegian Technology Park in Thailand where Norwegians are working, and also has many Norwegians and friends visiting all the time. I guess the same is with DTAC and Jotun in Bangkok. Wi-Fi is a smart thing you know :) and in fact IP these days does not mean anything before everybody goes into IPv6 and Internet of Things.
With regards to users, one IP can have many wikipedia users, especially in larger companies and as more and more people uses Wp, this will also be more and more common. Using Cookies are not a safe way unless everybody on one IP uses one PC with just one browser. If somebody clever want to "cheat" Wp on IP issues as Norwegian Anne-Sophie Ofrim tried to make a point out of, it's just to use proxy servers or more easy Windows Terminal Server and hook up to friends. In that way you can really play the IP game if that was an issue but it's not as every clever person knows how Wp works and does not try to do what's mentioned herein, it's easy as that. METC4F (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:DICTDEF. The sole external link is to the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable person , doesn't has enough notability , Just one significant role in Dil Dosti Dance , its a BLP1E case . Rahul Mothiya (Talk2Me|Contribs) 22:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography of an artist who doesn't appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have any sources and I haven't found many that seem reliable or that can verify a lot of the info here. It is also an autobiography. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 01:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded with a WP:BIGNUMBER argument that 70,000 visitors = notability. However, I could only find press releases and trivial mentions ("Artist X is performing at Raleigh Downtown Live"). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)The result was redirect to Discrimination. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to have any notability as a stand-alone article. References only prove use of the term, but we're not a dictionary. Delete or possibly redirect to subjects like Discrimination. Dmol (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL *Annas* (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It seems like amateur club in village, who play in local "unimportant" league. Even uncovered by national media. No reliable sources, just single author. The author create some article of this league, unimportant promotion??? *Annas* (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It seems like amateur club in village, who play in local "unimportant" league. Even uncovered by national media. No reliable sources, just single author. The author create some article of this league, unimportant promotion??? *Annas* (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It seems like amateur club in village, who play in local "unimportant" league. Even uncovered by national media. No reliable sources, just single author. The author create some article of this league, unimportant promotion??? *Annas* (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It seems like amateur, local "unimportant" league. Club and player only amateur on villagers. Even uncovered by national media. No reliable sources, just single author. The author create some artcle of this league, unimportant promotion??? or Vandalism maybe??? *Annas* (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. It seems like amateur club in village, who play in local "unimportant" league. Even uncovered by national media. No reliable sources, just single author. The author create some artcle of this league, unimportant promotion??? *Annas* (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do work for Tagteam Australia and have tried my best to present an un-bias view of the company, similar to company pages you would find on Coca-Cola or McDonalds. There is no promotional content or advertising material and is purely informative so I believe it is fair to keep this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmaglanville (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Many "keep" opinions are highly problematic for several reasons, including failure to address our inclusion criteria, personal attacks or possible canvassing. But there are also bona fide arguments to the effect that this event has received substantial coverage. Overall, there is plainly not the required consensus for deletion. Sandstein 18:01, 9 May 2012 (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)) . |
This yet to happen sports event fails a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. Mtking (edits) 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the MMA community will contribute to the individual pages and not the 2012 page. The 2012 page now has outdated fights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.44.158 (talk) — 92.5.44.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 92.5.44.158 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
Nonsense. UFC 1 took place 20years ago and remains historically important; major boxing events for boxing world title remain historically important decades and decades after the events.
-- Scarpy (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't care enough to read the entire above discussion, but the event has received coverage on multiple mainstream sports websites. For example, TSN, one of Canada's largest sports sites [33] [34] [35] and the British ESPN [36]. In fact, a Google News search shows coverage from a lot of non-MMA sources, such as Sportsnet, the Edmonton Journal and FOX News. Not only that, but because of the controversy surrounding the positive drug test of Overeem, there is the potential for this page to be inproved upon quite a bit. -- Scorpion0422 01:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a non-notable company. It is a recently formed (2006) company with a only 20 employees and a turnover of a paltry $2.5 million. It is essentially a run of the mill company. Current notability guidelines will allow this article to exist but the guidelines are in dire need of updating. I say this for a number of reasons:
I think I made an attempt to tighten up the guideline at WP:COMPANY in the past but it went nowhere. And this highlights another problem. The bureaucratic behemoth of the Wikipedia project and the conservativeness of active editors stifles any necessary change.
Sorry about the essay. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected by User:Jagadhatri. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Renominating for deletion an unreferenced list of episodes. The list has nothing encyclopedic in it. Only episode name and date of airing. Wikipedia is not a Directory.
Previous AfD was closed (non-admin) by nominator in Oct 2010. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subject may not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Of the two independent sources listed, one contains only a passing mention of the club, as do many of the other articles mentioning the club on the York Press website. Google's search and news pages show little of any significance. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(help)The result was delete. Certainly seems to have the makings of notability. However, the consensus amongst commentators is that the necessary significant coverage in reliable sources is not present. I am happy to userfy if anyone is prepared to sourced up the page. TerriersFan (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may not qualify for speedy delete, but as it is just a C.V. w/ no good references, it certainly needs to be deleted one way or another (or else completely rewritten, if this guy meets notability requirements.) JoelWhy (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Power electronics. Sandstein 17:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a content fork and substantial duplicate of Power electronics. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ACADEMIC Night of the Big Wind talk 00:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page reads like an advertisement for a book from a very small publisher. Citations do not actually talk about the book or its author. TheNate (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Revert to dab. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources are local incidental coverage dealing with individual members' shenanigans. I could find nothing non-trivial on the band, just local sources saying "Parmalee is performing at X". The band is signed to Stoney Creek Records, which is an assertation of notability, but their page there is just a placeholder, suggesting that they haven't released anything for the label. (Even regarding their signing to the label, I could find only press releases.) I work for a country music website and am "in the know" about new acts, and so far we've gotten no word on Parmalee releasing anything for Stoney Creek. I think this is merely a case of WP:TOOSOON — they're close to notable but not quite over the line yet. If/When they release something for the label, then most likely they will pass WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sources have been presented by Trevj that he believes demonstrate notability but that have not been evaluated or impeached. I'm going to give this one the benefit of the doubt. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of sufficient notability to meet the general notability guideline. Bulwersator (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of sufficient notability to meet the general notability guideline. Bulwersator (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Definitely no consensus for deletion - the discussion on whether to keep or merge would probably be best continued on the article's talk page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found no significant coverage. The notability of patients does not make the hospital notable. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DGG's opinion appears to be based on a misreading of the article. Sandstein 17:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant, minor faction that received 3.2% of the vote several years ago; only two sources one of which is from a site affiliated with the group the second of which only mentions the group in passing. Tagged for original research, non-notability and relying on sources close to the subject. Downwoody (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Software quality#Software quality measurement. I assume somebody will eventually fix the Newbie Capitalization. Sandstein 18:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article is of low quality and is covered entirely by Software quality Camjackson89 (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Yasht101 11:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Non-notable troupe with an entire cluster of non-notable items, each with its own article(s), all created by a tiny coterie of SPAs. Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close, obvious troll is obvious. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page shall be deleted because of the unproductive nature that is awfully prevalent on the talk page in which discourages new contributors, as what I have noticed by looking through the archived "topics". There remains to be increasing hostility towards new contributors or established contributors all together who would like to update the Article, itself, either by doing a minor or a major edit to comply with the official Wikipedia Guidelines, and not the irrelevant and unofficial guidelines which most of the "active" contributors tend to consistently repeat to new contributors and old contributors alike. The article is filled with fallacies that resulted in the POV tag and has not been addressed on the Talk Page at all. This article deserves to be deleted for the sake of the credibility of Wikipedia, and possibly the opportunity of starting over with this entire project in the future. Furthermore, the view history of this article alone shall tell you, the administrators, that this article cannot be repaired by merely locking it up because it has been locked up, and nothing productive occurred. The writing, structure and sources that this article uses have been hugely disputed and been challenged but there has been consistent revert, after revert, after revert from users who act as if they owned the article, itself. This article hasn't been updated properly because of the attitude of some users, and their hostility towards new contributors. Joshua the Patriot (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Yasht101 06:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Like List of best-selling boy bands, this list is based heavily on OR. The talk page is stuffed with "Why is X on here?" "Why is Y not on here?" and edit wars aplenty exist over who should and should not be included. Some editors have spammed the article with subjective examples of a "girl group", and the article is based entirely on editors' opinions. To quote that article's nominator, "Omissions and arbitrary decisions therefore affect the rankings calculated and shown. Sources used to support the sales figures do not classify or rank any of the bands in this manner, so each resulting list is the product of original synthesis." Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Manager of a hotel in the 19th century. Other than the fact that he is mentioned in a history of the hotel there is no real claim to fame here, so in my opinion this guy isn't sufficiently notable. Travelbird (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was a significant historical accomplishment for the entire region. The hotel attracted guests from across the country and O.L. Rapson allowed the hotel to experience a high level of success. Moreover, many of his innovations propelled the hotel to become a tourist mecca. He was a substantial figure in Southern Illinois history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawman4312 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.
Moreover, as already mentioned more information will be able to be contributed by allowing Mr. Rapson to have a Wikipedia page. Additionally, as far as the WP:GNG guidelines are concerned I think this more than qualifies. First, he opened and managed a national resort and a famous regional country club during one of the most tumultuous periods in American history. The hotel attracted famous people from across the country and advertised in a majority of the major cities newspapers during the 1920's. If given time to remain it is likely more information about the other major events in his life will be contributed. That seems to more than surpass the "typical hometown figures" you previously described. Further, if you examine many small town Wikipedia pages you can see links to people that are less notable and not cited but are allowed to remain in Wikipedia.
Next, if you have a moment please review the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers page. My main goal in contributing to Wikipedia to preserve history and write interesting creative articles that are Wikipedia worthy. After reading your last post I am feeling "bitten" or threatened. I checked my other posts that you mentioned and all of them cite independent relevant sources that are published. The "Nolan" book, which you stated I used "largely" as a source is troublesome since I usually list the book as further reading because I think it is a good source and it inspired me to contribute much of this information.
Finally, from the beginning I have tried to compromise and find a consensus. This article could be edited, more content added, or merged. I am trying my best but I have not seen any flexibility. Lawman4312 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP without enough notability. None of her roles are the kind to make someone notable. Mostly single-episode guest appearances on TV shows. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as G11. No prejudice to recreation as a sourced, non-promotional article. TerriersFan (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this institute is notable and with this general name nothing is relevant found, moreover this article is totally unreferenced and using peacock terms; original PROD was removed with a promise of any change, but nothing changed. mabdul 00:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PROD constested by Daemonic Kangaroo (talk · contribs) with no explanation given. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY consensus that clubs must compete in a national league (so for English football, from Premier League down to Conference National) for season articles to be considered notable.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the same guidelines:
The result was delete. Reading though the various comments here, various good points made on either side, but in the final analysis it seems clear that (as an editor noted below) "There is little or no connection between the disparate publications of the same or similar name other than similar ideological outlooks." While the publications listed in the article are indeed individually notable, there does not appear to be a unity between them except in terms of sharing some name and being socialist in character. As several editors raised, this is a significant synthesis case.
We already have a disambiguation page, Forward, and of course various publications can be listed there.
Thanks for all comments. Neutralitytalk 06:46, 8 May 2012 (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)) . |
This is a candidate for deletion because:
I have thus submitted it to be deleted. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)SkepticAnonymous (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear why some want this page eliminated. Obama chose "forward" as his campaign slogan. The historical use of "forward" in a political sense is now embarrassing to him. Thus the page must be removed. This is an effort at political censorship. Obama chose the word for his campaign. Wikipedia should not protect him from the consequences. The choice of "Forward" as his slogan should have been more carefully vetted. It wasn't. Now the Obama campaign should have to live with it. And just because someone uses the information on the historical use of "Forward" in socialist and communist publications to oppose the Obama reelection is insufficient reason for Wikipedia to delete the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.195.186 (talk • contribs)
Nowhere in the article does it address a current political situation in an attack method, therefore it is not a Blatant Political Attack. (Please note that if someone uses this page as a reference in a Blatant Political Attack, that does not mean that this page itself is a Blatant Political Attack.) An Argument can be made that since each of the items listed in the list are references, and each of those publications have references including the applicable websites of said publications. Therefore, ample resources are listed. Finally, it is impossible to make a valid argument that referencing a publication's name in an article "discussing publications' names" is not a reliable source. Therefore the arguments that (SkepticAnonymoustalk)use for deleting the article are not valid arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyDoc23 (talk • contribs)
1) The rationales for deletion given in the nomination are faulty. To try to invoke BLP, CSD, etc. is blabant nonsense. Accusing other editors of racism, is not helpful either. User:SkepticAnonymous needs to take things down a notch, for the sake of reason. 2) One questionable edit is not a basis for deletion. There is no relevance to the Obama edit to the article, and that passage can be switfly removed. 3) The article in question is one of the those cases were it got started but never took off. My ambition has however been to expand it further than a disamb page, to give an historical overview of the name in the socialist movement. Recently, I found some material that could be used for an expansion, mentions of how the name fell out of fashion in Soviet Russia following 1917 (see Nachrichten). I'll try to search for other sources as well, to provide more detail. --Soman (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OH PULEEEZE. Are you serious, SkepticAnonymous? Racist? Now your true colors have come to the surface. Just another proggie who starts screaming "racist" when the argument is lost. Time to grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.195.186 (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will repost my comments. Please note that just because SkepticAnonymous chose to strike it out does not make it invalid, actually it makes it more valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyDoc23 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The entry for "Forward" is a proper reference to historical fact. The attempt to have it deleted is the blatant political act, the act of covering up and re-writing history and suppression of historical fact. Wikipedia is suppose to be a source of fact that is not effected by personal or ideological motives. The removal of entries is just as bad if not worse then the editing of entries. The attempts to strike AfD comments and the personal attacks of others in the AfD comments of others further prove the blatant political act that the request to delete is. The original entry has been archived and if it is deleted or edited those changes will be exposed. It is this sort of editing of facts which is giving Wikipedia a reputation for not being a credible source or reference. ```` CParisho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.206.28 (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Was the article true before the word was adopted by the Obama campaign? Is it still true? Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantumfighter (talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. This article was created by Soman on or before Jan 1, 2011. The Obama Campaign announced the slogan on April 30, 2012. Just because they, and SkepticAnonymouse ARE Socialists, does not mean they get to rewrite history. If Wikipedia deletes this entry, it will show that the organization is biased and political. I would hope that they would keep to being a straightforward catalog of facts as they originally founded themselves to be. The fact is, many socialists and groups, including Marx and Engels, used the name Forward. Hey, socialists, you came up with the tag, now wear it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.75.11 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1 In citing Vorwärts! the snub ignores the founding of the paper and its original purpose and the reason for Marx joining the paper in the first place, after the closure of Deutsch-Französische_Jahrbücher which eventually lead the closure of Vorwärts by the Prussian King Friedrich_Wilhelm_IV 2 In repurposing of the paper in 1876 Vorwärts Soman ignores that Vorwärts did not become an organ of the Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany till 1891 to 1933 after the actual paper as he claims. He also says the editor was Wilhelm Liebknecht who actually edited Volksstaat which existed in October 2, 1869 to September 23, 1876 which was actually an organ for German_Social_Democratic_Workers_Party_in_the_Czechoslovak_Republic. Another paper that published in that time (1891-1933) was the Volksstimme. It was properganda their were alot of papers. 3 The Russian version Vpered did not publish Lenin. Soman claims "the publication that Lenin started after having resigned from the Iskra editorial board in 1905 after a clash with Georgi Plekhanov and the Mensheviks." the publication that Lenin started after having resigned from the Iskra editorial board in 1905 after a clash with Georgi Plekhanov and the Mensheviks. when an alternate and conflicting version states It backed the Russian Marxist economists and then, after the split in the Party, the Mensheviks. It published articles by Leon Trotsky, but would not publish any by Vladimir Lenin. 4 He ignores the conflict the paper had with hitler, "The libel proceedings against the Socialist editor were instituted by the reactionary leader of Bavaria following the publication by the Vorwaerts of a report that the Hitler Organization was receiving financial aid from "American Jews and Henry Ford."" 5 one lovely thing that has noting to do with the suit but ignored connections is "During the Nazi period, the Social Democratic Party of Germany was banned, and so the publication of Vorwärts in Germany had to stop in 1933, but it was continued in exile in Czechoslovakia until 1938 and subsequently in Paris until 1940." Jarunasax (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)I believe the reason for making the snub was legitimate, but because of the uproar it's causing, everything about it becomes questionable and the missed connections becomes big holes within something he would have gotten round to eventuallyJarunasax (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And no I don't have any edits outside of these 2, It doesn't make me a bot or a troll, these were things that interested me, and I have no intention of editing your post for you. nor am I being rude or abusive of abusing the wiki policies, I'm just pointing out to you that your snub needs work to make it salvagable.Jarunasax (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it.....If you delete in light of obummers planned use of the work, there will be no use for your service or website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.171.104 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. Actually, I have (donated). Several times. Wont anymore, do as you like. You remind me of a college professor that has four PHD's, but has to get his 10 year old kid to tie his shoes :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.167.240 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article was created well over a year before this so called "political attack". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.150 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Keep. "How many fingers am I holding up?""I'm not sure...""That's better." George Orwell, 1984. The movie is available on Netflix. BW. Norman, Oklahoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.208.120 (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
If the article is over a year old, then how is this political shananigans? Don't let politics in here, if the president choose a slogan that happens to mesh with something from the past, that should not affect whether or not this article is on here. If there is verifiably false data, that should be adjusted or removed, but to throw out the whole thing flies in the face of the purpose of this site. Peterwesson (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article was accurate before the Obama campaign adopted it then it is still accurate. Keep it and lock it down to prevent politicising it. Deleting it would actually BE a political act by Wikipedia; freezing it would not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaJoe1950 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
“ | lla al-Amam means forward, and the word has significance in communist jargon. The word "forward" was commonly used by the socialists, communists and other radical leftists as a title for their numerous journals and publications. Lenin himself, after his resignation from the editorial board of the organ of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party Iskra (The Spark), caused by his quarrel with the Mensheviks and Plechanov, published a new weekly, Vperyod ("Forward" in Russian) during the period of 4 January to 18 May 1905. | ” |
Regarding the article on your website regarding "Forward (generic name of socialist publications," I resent that you delete and article because it makes the president, whom you are biased about, look bad. He is the one who chose "forward" as his campaign slogan, not you. It's his responsibility to chose whether a slogan is bad for him, NOT YOU. In your business, you cannot afford to be biased or endorse a candidate. Taking down the truth to make obama or anyone else look better in a factural truth is biased and you are guilty of it. The communist Marxist Nazi's did use this, and obama chose this because of his agenda. it is NOT your job to cover for him, or his regime, and it is not your job to knock down truths and get them out of the way for his benefit. What kind of factual site are you? One that eliminates the truth and takes it off the site to cover for anyone who threatens and bribes is outrageous. You are no longer a reputable site, and I for one, will not go to this site again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.249.31 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez. This is the English language version of WP. I'm sorry, but much of the English-speaking world could care less about US politics - except of course in so far as, well you know, all that stuff about.... Clearly the term "forward" has a particular historical use and the article in question should not be deleted. Mfhiller (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]