< October 30 | November 1 > |
---|
Deleted as copyvio. -- Hoary 10:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
del a praise of a debut book. Original research. Notability dubious. `' mikkanarxi 08:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Bastique
I really want to speedy this but it does assert notability, although spuriously... So. Anyway. The article fails WP:WEB, WP:RS, etc. Crystallina 04:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete CSD G11, qualifies as spam even if article is a hoax -- Samir धर्म 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Obvious hoax. ghits: [2] NMChico24 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable so violates WP:CORP Xiner 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
We Shouldn't be debating on this...- ECH3LON 01:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus after all that. Yomangani talk 13:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Game guide, prohibited by WP:NOT. World of Warcraft covers the subject of classes adequately without the need for a indiscriminate list. Combination 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep It is an interesting insight into a game. When I go to a museum, I do not personally "like" all the exhibits. But I appreciate the collection. I view Wikipedia the same way: a cumulative collection of interests.
Jcam 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Though has a "gameguide creep" problem and can be difficult to manage sometimes, it's certainly an article that deserves existence. If it didn't exist, then it would be necessary to increase the size of the World of Warcraft article to accomodate information on its classes. And I'm talking like 250-500 words per class, which would bloat the article significantly and it's large enough as it is. RobertM525 01:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article does not meet the criteria for notability in a music article, as the only label the band has ties to is a non-notable one. Additionally, the article was written by one of the band members; User:Psychaotic is the vocalist/synthesizer player. EvilCouch 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Steel 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Furthermore, none of these wikis are particularly notable as websites. BhaiSaab talk 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - Yomangani talk 17:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
A POV essay of sorts, or something of a contextless bullet list. Certainly not an article, and would need a complete rewrite if it were to stay, so therefore delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Repost G4. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia isn't a fan's guide to American Idol. The album sales of each Idol finalist is listed on the individual pages, there is no reason for a page like this on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 01:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - the proposed merge target doesn't exist, but if somebody wants to write it I will copy this article to their userspace for source material while they are doing so. Yomangani talk 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- Tone 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was - delete - the rebuttal of the keep advocates, to which the keep advocates often did not respond to the notability question, as well as one vote, push this over the line. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
webcomics I ever heard about. ABigBlackMan 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Tone 23:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. -- Brad Beattie (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article gives little assertion of notability, and no sources. What little is here does not satisfy WP:BIO. Valrith 11:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Completing malformed nom from Ceros ( talk · contribs). No vote from me. Daniel Olsen 02:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Yanksox 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The tiny amount of meaningful information this simple list presents is original research. (Contested PROD) ➥the Epopt 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Keep Not paper. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - due to OR concerns as to the criteria, and there being no properly defined criteria for inclusion. Aside from that, all the IP "keeps". Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The tiny amount of meaningful information this simple list presents is original research. (Contested PROD) ➥the Epopt 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable clip show used to promote the American syndicated rebroadcast of a Canadian television program. fails WP:NOT and WP:EPISODE L0b0t 02:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Speedy deleteion for advertising was vociferously contested, so I'm sending this here. Gush article about a gun store, 302 Google hits and a smattering of mentions on Newsbank, although some of them are in NY Times and WaPo. ~ trialsanderrors 02:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - consensus that she fails WP:BIO, Seraphimblade sums it up nicely. Yomangani talk 17:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This was put up for proposed deletion with the following reason: "Reads like CV, no assertion of notability, Google doesn't know this one too well." I disagree with all these reasons, but I think the article may be a good candidate for deletion based on how unimportant the subject seems to be in the grand scheme of things. However, she is a real person, and I tend to think real people are worth keeping, much more so than the many minor fictional characters that litter the encyclopedia. Mr Spunky Toffee 02:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Hearts (game) - Yomangani talk 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a neologism as well as a very short article. MAYBE redirect. i kan reed 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band as per WP:MUSIC. No citations for any of the info. StumpyRaccoon 03:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I know there's various games that can be played with WP, but "Seekipedia" does not appear notable enough for its own article. I could find barely anything but Wikipedia and its mirrors during a Google search. Perhaps this is known under a different name, but if someone wants to keep it on WP my suggestion would be to find a way to fit it on WP:FUN, or possibly create something like list of Wikipedia games (but ONLY if references exist). JayMars 03:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Chick Bowen 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy deletion candidate. Listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 04:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The importance is, after one of the worst catastrophes in human history (Katrina), happened in New Orleans, the sheriff of a near by parish said in so many words that black folks weren't welcomed there. It was major news. I was surprised that the page didn't exist to begin with. This is a government official being openly racist towards poor black folks who had just experienced one of the worst disasters in history - not only the hurricane, but the criminal lack of action by the federal government to help the victims.
I don't understand what the problem is? Clearly this guy isn't some "nobody" that no one's ever heard of. There are entries on much more insignificant people here. Redflagflying 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Redflagflying 08:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Though I can see the worth of having the articles gender archaeology and Feminist archaeology, and usually have no complaints about disambiguation pages, this one... well, why do we have it? Do we need it? I'd say we don't, and this can be quite safely deleted. Grutness... wha? 04:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film maker and author, created by Korak Day himself, removed speedy deletion tag. Main website referenced in the article [20] is dead Steve 04:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Vanity Green hornet 05:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
^Delete Not notable w/ 100 google hits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Top google hits are for myspace and wikipedia. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete due to OR and NPOV unsalvagability. Also, anything here would already be in the OBL page if necesary, so nothing is lost by deleting. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 04:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web comic, CSD contested with its notability based on it being on a faulty server and disappearing for a period of time Delete Steve 05:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Vegaswikian. MER-C 10:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Borderline ad, article previously speedied as ad, no references or notability assertion Seraphimblade 05:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Never heard of these guys. Notability needs to be established, otherwise this article is hard to justify. The link to about.com and the BBS really says nothing. Egil 05:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETED by User:Nihonjoe. JIP | Talk 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Borderline ad, no assertion of notability. Previously speedied as ad. Seraphimblade 05:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable drink. Article claims some kind of notability but there are no sources, so it's original research and unverifiable to boot. No love on Google. Melchoir 05:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Mango juice talk 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Yet another mailer. Literally. No evidence of significance, user base or being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Guy 11:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. I will redirect, anyone who wants to merge over content can do so. W.marsh 17:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Seems like cruft to me. I suppose a rename to running gags of Goon Show would be fine, if the page does need to exist. RobJ1981 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The content reads more like a diatribe, is very POV, and the sole contributor has a similar name to the (previously) only source on the page (after raising that objection, the source was changed from "Jayanta" to "J." and another source added, but no content). All efforts to clear up these questions with Jayantaism have yielded no response on his/her talk page. Some content could be salvaged and merged into Corporate social responsibility. It is unclear whether or not this is a vanity page, but this user has only been adding content with Jayanta Bhattacharya as the sole source. Rkitko 06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable videogame competition. -- Nehwyn 07:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete' Blnguyen' ( bananabucket) 04:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable biography about the creator of a bargain hunter website. Article created by a single-purpose account. -- Nehwyn 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Disagree: Website, work in education is notable. — Possible
single purpose account:
Thepose (
talk •
contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
The result was Speedy Delete (A7, no assertion of notability) by User:BanyanTree. ColourBurst 15:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Original Research, not verifiable, not notable Feeeshboy 08:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete (G11, spam) by User:BanyanTree. ColourBurst 15:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Pure spam. No third-party references. -- RHaworth 08:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - even after removing the copyright material, this seems to fall into the same category as the cold war article of the same game. I cite WP:NOT: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic Charlesknight 09:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn after article was restructured. JYolkowski // talk 00:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Bare stub about a high school that hasn't been touched since it was written two months ago. No assertion of notability (unless one counts the statement that an actor who is not noteworthy enough to have his own article, having had a bit part in one film according to IMDB, is a graduate). Unsourced. Article doesn't even bother to say where in America the school is located -- there are several schools sharing that name, including ones in IL, CA, and CO, and none of them appear particularly noteworthy according to my searches. (This school is the one in IL, incidentally.) Contested prod, on the grounds that it's a school.
Shimeru 09:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Online publication, recently inaugurated, notability not established, authored as the only contribution from a new account, posted on several Wikipedias, poorly Googlable. If to be deleted, also check Special:Whatlinkshere. lcamtuf 10:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Daniel Olsen 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
A non notable label full of non notable bands that fail WP:MUSIC. T REX speak 23:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Punkmorten 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
A non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC. T REX speak 23:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
A non notable artist who fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Has released a number of albums, although on non notable labels. T REX speak 23:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Policy wonkism has its place, but having separate (relisted!) afds for album stubs from a deleted band is a bit much. — Cryptic 11:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
A non notable EP by a non notable band ( Zegunder) that was recently deleted. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distant Birds? Thought They Were Leaves... T REX speak 23:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Self-promotion for some very marginal piece of software. Richard W.M. Jones 11:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a strange article, explicitly labelled as the index/contents listing of a book published in 1990. I have no doubt that a list of significant people in Tudor England is both useful and appropriate for wikipedia, but I am unsure about the acceptability of an article which is simply the contents listing of a book which is still in copyright. Is it a copyvio? Are there other policies it falls foul of? I'm unsure, so I make this nomination without a recommendation either way (I may make a recommendation later on if some persuades me in one direction or the other). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Wjhonson's point that an index is a "minor extract". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
There has been no indication as to the existence of Diablo 3, this article even stats so itself. All in all it's just rumors on rumors. Until Blizzard announces the game, I don't see any reason that this article should be here. It also breaks WP:NOT a crystal ball. Sorry. Havok (T/ C/ c) 12:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Directory of businesses. Advertising. Ligulem 12:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
First deletion reason. Article fails to assert its notability by reference to a single reliable source WP:NN. Wholely original research and opinion violating WP:RS and WP:NPOV (Note: blogs don't meet WP criteria). Part of a walled garden in conspiracy theory circles. Article has been deleted once before, and re-created. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Morton devonshire 13:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Asserted to be the first non-governmental inspector of the Iraqi nuclear program, but otherwise seems to be non-notable. Gut feeling: delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, spammy neologism. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
To state my position up front: Rather than deleting the article, I feel that it should be revised and strengthened, and allowed to remain online.
A "sucks.com website" is a specialized kind of "complaint website" (you could think of sucks.com sites as being a "subset" of complaint sites). Their distinguishing characteristic is that they communicate their complaint as part of the domain name itself, typically in conjunction with the name of the organization (often a business) that is the subject of the complaint. This succinct and stunningly effective use of domain names allows a complaint to be communicated without even requiring the viewing of the website.
Because the portion of the domain name that precedes "sucks.com" is often a trademarked name, sucks.com sites have engendered a rash of lawsuits, in which businesses typically charge site owners with trademark infringement. For years, decisions (court and arbitration) were uneven (and perhaps even capricious), as no lower-court decision was binding on any other jurisdiction. However, my case was the first sucks.com case to reach the level of the US Court of Appeals, which definitively ruled that a non-commercial sucks.com site was purely an expression of free speech, and as such was not subject to trademark law. The decision by that Court has been adopted as precedent by other circuits, and is well on its way to becoming established law throughout the US.
The point I'm trying to make here is that sucks.com sites are the bleeding edge of the ongoing struggle for free speech on the Internet. I recognize that the crudity of their names makes many Internet purists uneasy, in that they would rather fight the Internet free-speech battle on a less-offensive front line. But I still feel that the concept is an important one, and eminently deserving of a Wikipedia article.
I should point out that the US Court of Appeals weighed in on the issue of the importance of sucks.com sites when they said, in their decision on my case:
"Taubman concedes that Mishkoff is 'free to shout "Taubman Sucks!" from the rooftops....' Essentially, this is what he has done in his domain name. The rooftops of our past have evolved into the Internet domain names of our present. We find that the domain name is a type of public expression, no different in scope than a billboard or a pulpit, and Mishkoff has a First Amendment right to express his opinion about Taubman, and as long as his speech is not commercially misleading, the Lanham Act cannot be summoned to prevent it."
I couldn't have said it better myself... :) -- HMishkoff
The above highly informative comments by Hank Mishkoff should in my humble opinion be included in the article in an appropriate manner. User: JohnaDonovan: 1 November 2006
I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia culture, and so I don't know if "neologism" is some kind of code word -- but I'm puzzled by your contention that the fact that sucks.com is a neologism (a "newly coined term") would disqualify it from inclusion in Wikipedia. "Internet" is a neologism. "World Wide Web" is a neologism. "Wikipedia" is a neologism. In fact, it seems to me that one of the strengths of Wikipedia (in contrast to convententional encyclopediae) is the ease with which it embraces neologisms. So while I agree that "sucks.com" is a neologism, I think that argues for its inclusion in Wikipedia, not its exclusion. HMishkoff 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep. I thought there was a relevant policy, but couldn't find it at the time. Banyan Tree 15:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Band. See talk for claim of notability. (Closing admin: This is a procedural nom; count me as neutral.) Banyan Tree 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as non-notable (CSD A7). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school film production group. Weregerbil 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Google gives less than 20 distinct hits, 9 of which are Wikipedia mirrors or copies, several are chat forums. The ones in Polish I don't understand but they don't look particularly useful in establishing notability. (Perhaps a Polish speaker could check these out.) The subject's own website is dead! Links on the page to other language wikies all come up with the equivalent of the page not existing (perhaps they did but have been deleted.} Creator has no other contibutions listed - not in itself a reason for deletion I know, but certainly a question to bear in mind.} Emeraude 15:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Arguably asserts notability as music producer, but I don't think notability is established in the article. NawlinWiki 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. It really isn't that hard. Fan-1967 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I didnt try to be convoncing using appearance alteration. Just happend to be the same time i was checking the account preferences. Anyway I guess its better to leave the judgement for those who moderate the site. I mentioned my point. at the end of the day there wont be a third case, either kept or deleted. I'll do what I think is right and write what I think can be useful. Good day Wikitorian 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Note Forged signature. Actually posted by Xgreen ( talk · contribs)
X Green Caedmon records google returned at least 10 relevant hits Wikitorian 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Note Forged signature. Actually posted by Xgreen ( talk · contribs) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Social organization. (Procedural listing; count me as neutral) Banyan Tree 15:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
A bus route is not a suitable article subject for Wikipedia.
WP:NOT a travel guide. Delete
Proto::
type 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
**
OC Transpo Route 96
**
OC Transpo Route 97
Nomination WITHDRAWN. I won't remove the AFD notices or close this - as nominator, it's not my place to do so; please could an admin do so (on all 3 articles). Proto:: type 09:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply
cmacd 13:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I'm closing this early because there have been no dissenting votes, the copyright owner is pissed, and there's no need to continue the debate any further. Mango juice talk 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! |
The reason I have marked all these articles to discuss for deletion is twofold. The first one is the question of copyright. Every article I have tagged has a
single source (
http://www.samurai-archives.com/dictionary/A1.html or later pages in that same source - for now I have only tagged the A's). In most cases it is also an uncited source. Regardless, the text of each of these articles is merely an exact duplicate with a few words changed around. In nearly every case, the content (meaning) and order of the content (meaning) is the same, even if some words have been changed. Whether this is blatant copyright infringement or not may be questionable, but that is not the only issue.
Quality of scholarship The second issue is quality and scholarship. All of these articles only have that one source - the Samurai Archives website. In many cases, if not most, sources are not cited on that website. Therefore, we can not verify the validity of the entries on that website. One of the requirements of Wikipedia is that articles include information that is verifiable. Information taken from the Samurai Archives is not verifiable. The simple fact of the matter is, aside from it not being verifiable, if there are any errors in information on that website, we are now propogating them all over the internet. This is because all of the articles I tagged are created only from information on the Samurai Archives website. That is just plain poor scholarship, and has been noted on other discussions regarding this, adding articles such as the ones I have tagged cheapens wikipedia and it cheapens the work that we do in adding information to it. Another issue is that many, or possibly most, of the articles I tagged, have not been added to for months, which tells me that there is little information out there that can be used to supplement them. So the issue of both verifiability and scholarship leads me to feel that these articles need to be eliminated. The articles I have tagged are of low quality, and of almost no academic value, and I back that statement up with what I have written above.
There are over 100 articles almost identical in situation to the few that I have tagged here - and you will also notice that it is the same contributor on every article Darrin Fidika - he apparently been made aware of the situation many times over, but continues to blithely post articles of identical poor quality as those I have marked below. That worries me. He has been talked to many times according to his talk page, but he never stopped this activity.
Sorry it took me so long to figure out how to go about all this, I have always been happy to just anonymously add information to wikipedia from work during slow times, but this issue, first brought forward a few days ago, really caught my attention as a major quality control issue that all of us who contribute to wikipedia need to pay attention to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyheadster ( talk • contribs) . 20:07, October 30, 2006 (UTC)
Articles included for deletion
-- Monkeyheadster 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Marume Nagayoshi Here is a good example of a typical "entry": Samurai archives - Nagayoshi was a retainer of the Sagara family of Higo Province. He is said to have met the wandering swordsman Kamiizumi Nobutsuna and studied under him, later forming his own school of swordsmanship on Kyushu. Wikipedia: Maruma Nagayoshi (1540-1629) was a retainer of the Japanese clan of Sagara of Hizen province during the Sengoku Period of the 16th century, extending to the 17th century of the Edo Period. It is said that Nagayoshi ran into the famous swordsman known as Kamiizumi Nobutsuna and began training under him. Nagayoshi later established his own school of swordsmanship at Kyūshū.
As it can't be disputed that the tagged articles are rewrites of articles from the samurai archives and no other sources were used, I do not believe this can be considered fair use of the material. These articles duplicate the information from the samurai archives while not adding anything new to them - they are mere copies with different wording. This has gotten way, way out of hand, and I think removing the articles until such time responsible and interested parties come along to do actual orginal work is best. -- Monkeyheadster 21:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe that each and every one of my points have merit, and and every one alone justifies removing the pages. Please don't try to debate a single point while ignoring the rest. I believe, however, that removing the articles is the right thing to do, again, until such time that responsible and interested parties can come up with orginial article from multiple verifiable sources. I believe we should be working together here to make wikipedia a good place for information. I hope my belief that we can and should make wikipedia a better place for information is justified. Because, by leaving these articles copied by Darin up, we are hurting the quality, and the reputation of wikipedia - both as a source, and as a place where plagiarism and bad scholarship is not tolerated. -- Monkeyheadster 22:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
I really appreciate your backup on this. It truly is ridiculous. I have been working for 3 or 4 days to bring this to someone's attention. I fully agree with you - NO ONE will volunteer to improve these, and so keeping them up just hurts wikipedia. We do have a problem here, however - There are over 100 more articles in an identical situation as these. How do you recommend I move forward with the rest of it? -- Monkeyheadster 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
These biographies, which have been online at the samurai archives for at least 6 years, were the ones that have been recently moved to the samurai wiki. Since I own the copyright, I have full right to move them. I research Japanese resources, I would never even consider taking any of the worthless information from wikipedia, as most of the info on wikipedia is here by my or my associate, by proxy. These are the original articles that you 'claim' were taken from wikipedia, when the reality is, they have been on my website for 6 years, researched by me and my associate:
Also, here are the original battles, also up for at least 5 years, take a look at any matching wikipedia entry, I assume that they will be similar, because my site has been gutten and raped by wikipedia for years, mostly without attribution:
This is what happens when wikipedia is lax with its standards. It gets me accused of stealing my own work. I am drafting a letter to wikipedia's legal representative now, so do me a favor and leave up all of these articles that have been tagged for deletion, so that the lawyers will be able to see the violations when they get my letter.-- Kuuzo 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Boldly userfied this autobiography, which has been deleted twice before as {{ db-bio}}. I'll take it up with the subject on his Talk page. Guy 11:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article is an autobiography and violates WP:AB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skapur ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 31 October 2006
The result was speedy merge. The nominator has boldly done the merger that they wanted, as per the discussion at Talk:The Weather Channel/Archive 1. Discussion of the merger belongs on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Pulling across any lost content can be done by any editor, and does not require administrator privileges. Uncle G 16:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete or Merge to
The Weather Channel: She's been around for 11 years with the company and was on a few television stations, however, there's not enough information on her to warrant an stand-alone article. She's likely known within the circles of TWC and fans who follow her. --
Moreau36 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
A random shooting is not notable IMHO! Only a few Canadian local media outlets talked about the incident Szvest 15:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ® reply
If I had a dollar for every shooting in LA...- ECH3LON 01:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Also see:
I'm going to nominate this group of articles since I think we'd first need consensus before going ahead and creating such articles. Personally I feel that most info here that can be salvaged should go into the history section of the club, or a seperate history article if one exists. Only when the history article gets extremely long should we contemplate splitting of articles like this. jaco♫ plane 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as a copyvio. There is no time limit on CSD G12. -- Core des at 06:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
a) copyright violation (from [27]); b) misspelled name "Ramdas"; c) Samarth Ramdas exists Lars T. 15:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Articles Brad Wilson and BradsDeals have just been nominated for deletion. The largest part of this school article was about Brad Wilson. Following the deletions, the article has been edited to remove him. However, I have serious doubts that this school actually exists for these reasons: (1) The article itself has practically no information, not what one would expect from such a high octane institution. (2) The school's own website has clearly not been updated for many months (i.e. since before it was supposed to have opened last July). (3) The school's calendar on the website is empty. (4) The press article cited actually links to the school's website where it is presented as a PDF file, and (5) the articel itself only mentions TWO potential students. (6) And that article itself is from March 2006. Perhaps there is someone who has some local knowledge who could help with this. Emeraude 16:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Appears to be non-n. See [28] Mad Jack 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to fork (disambiguation). Yomangani talk 13:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I am really not sure about whether this should be deleted. It has had the notability tag on it for ages, and I think that this will be the best way to decide whether it deserves the tag, or deserves to go. As such, I am not going to vote at this moment in time. J Milburn 16:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned in light of input from members of WikiProject Alaska. I wish to make clear that there no flaw in procedure, and no error on the part of the previous closer; sufficient interest of a large number of well-informed established editors, unaware of the prior discussion, is itself a valid reason for relisting. This matter is submitted at AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete a third party canidate in a failed 2002 election is not notable.
Arbusto 23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable amateur rugby club. NawlinWiki 16:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
KEEP: Steeler's page updated - The Steelers feature in an anti-homophobic campaign recently launched by the Met. Police (one of the team's sponsors) and is also endorsed by the RFU. This should be counted as 'signifigant press coverage'.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This (unreferenced) article is about an ordinary, unremarkable footbridge. There are millions of similar structures around the world and I can't see why this one should have an article at Wikipedia. Previous AfD discussion from 2005 is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olchfa footbridge (the result was no consensus). KFP ( talk | contribs) 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a nomination for Rune Danielsen, Lamin Bojang, Andreas Welo, Kenneth Gruer Hansen, Terje Sanne, Inge Klevberg, Alexander Kristoffersen, Thomas Hansen, Bjørnar Sund and Christoffer Lind Røysnes, players for for Norwegian football team Bærum SK.
Contrary to the beliefs of the article creator, these footballers are not professional and does not play in a professional league. I cleaned up the articles of the team players who actually have, and whose professional league appearances are verifiable (I know Danielsen was once in the Lyn Oslo squad, but not if he actually played). Hell, I've even played with Bojang, Røysnes and Hansen (whose article by the way is flat out wrong - he is a goalkeeper born in 1987!) Punkmorten 17:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Admittedly, this footballer has played in the highest league in Norway, which is a fully professional league (although it's very unlikely that he had a professional contract). But his sole appearance was limited to 7 minutes. ( See this cached page). Therefore this article falls on the "non" side of notability, and also WP:V. Punkmorten 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus so kept by default. Yomangani talk 15:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This AfD request for Debbie Liebling is due to a combination of lack of notability; possible commercial insertion (see the earlier version before a speedy-deletion tag was placed on it, which was very WP:PEACOCK, and the other edits by the editors and creators of the page); and lack of useful encyclopedic information (though of course, if that exists, it could be added). jesup 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Note to Closing Administrator - Unfortunately, a user is repeatedly removing an independent reliable reference/source from the article. This in violation of WP:POV and is highly inappropriate during an AfD as it could unduly influence editors opinions. -- Oakshade 01:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Article serves no purpose. All information incorporated into main article. No encyclopedia pages link to it Jojas 18:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organization. Only hit in Google is the organization's Myspace page. John Nagle 18:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
PRAY does not have many hits YET, but it will – very soon. PRAY has been very active on a local basis, in Springfield, Missouri, where it was formed. It is sure to be an important group, on a national basis, as the 2008 elections get into full swing a week from today. User:macs417 13:10, 31 October 2005 (CST)
The result was Delete - Yomangani talk 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Gadgetry 18:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
There's nothing in this vague and poorly sourced stub that isn't already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. We don't need a separate article for every term for demons. wikipediatrix 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn. - Longhair\ talk 08:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Does not attempt to assert any form of notability. At best it could be merged into the city article, but the {{ local}} existed for all of 22 minutes. Vegaswikian 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Unpublished books, scores the rare Zero Google Hits award. Possibly deletable immediately under db-spam. Was Prod tagged, but tag removed without comment by article creator. Calton | Talk 19:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as non-notable (CSD A7). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a resume, with no asserted notability. Editor has already removed db-bio and prod tags. FisherQueen 19:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as copyvio even after editing. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Article's tone is such that I really want to speedy it per CSD G11. -- Merope 20:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Unsourced and no web search hits apart from a patent application, unclear that this actually exists Rich257 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I must admit a lack of knowledge as to the Irish football scene, but this player simply doesn't sound notable enough. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 21:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a place for POV essays, which this effectively is. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 21:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Steel 14:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating KHL Engineered Packaging Solutions, KHL Express and Traybon. They are non-notable linked companies that are subsidiaries of multinational Amcor and each fails WP:CORP, plus a non-notable baking product. Articles created by editor User:Corrbert whose only edits are these [37]. Prod contested by 207.104.211.150 whose only edits are these [38], saying "Kent H. Landsberg Company is a noteworthy organization with over 20,000 individual customers, 60 years of history, and 2,500 coworkers. It is NOT known in North America by its Amcor association". I say delete. Mereda 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- MCB 07:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable yacht design group; fails all three of WP:CORP's criteria because 1), there aren't multiple, non-trivial published works about it, 2), the company is not "listed on ranking indices of important companies," and 3), its stock price is not used to calculate market indices. Add to that, less than 500 ghits. Picaroon9288 21:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
Note that Frank Lloyd Wright only generates 809 unique Google hits and the most famous yacht design team Sparkman & Stephens only generates 776 unique Google hits. At 66% of S&S, it seems that N-M could be considered very significant to this industry, as recognized by the web.
Kevin Murray 00:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Non-notable cave, in a non-notable park, article created as a record of a glorified family get together Delete Steve 22:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. W.marsh 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for speedy deletion, but doesn't qualify, because the notability of the company is asserted. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion/vote, but inclined to keep. A ecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close as delete per WP:SNOW.-- Konst.able Talk 00:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply
Original research and possibly advertising (link is to a site that performs search engine optimization). In fact, there is no substance to this article -- it exists to direct people toward the essay behind that external link. I believe that essay's point is already covered, in more encyclopedic and NPOV form, in the Google and History of Google articles. Shimeru 00:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply