The result was Keep - As the episodes of Star Trek have been seen by millions of people, they are all indisputably notable. The Rules of acquisition have come up again and again, and are a central aspect of the Ferengi way of life, and are prominently featured in dozens of episodes. They are also the basis for the title of a popular Star Trek book. This doesn't seem to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) guideline, but at this time the status of that guideline is under dispute - but more importantly, consensus trumps a guideline. Reliable sources is also a guideline, and the community can overrule it. It's not a trivia section as per WP:TRIVIA because the items listed forms a logical group. The article is not indiscriminate, as its subject matter is a specific well-known set of items. The consensus is overwhelmingly to keep, and no policies have been cited that are being violated by the article, as far as I can tell. The Transhumanist 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The article has very limited notability, and the useful information about who created the rules I have moved to the main Ferengi article. As the rest of this article is just a repetition of the Rules from the various television shows, it is duplicative with the plot sections of the various shows in which they were featured, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted. IrishGuy talk 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Possibly a neologism, I've never heard of this word before. Either delete or if a legitimate word, transwiki to Wiktionary Mr Senseless ( talk) 23:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSIC. WP:COI violation. This article has been deleted once, has had a db tag removed without explanation, has been userfied, and is now back again, but still no notability has been provided. Corvus cornix talk 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Canley ( talk) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced article about a movie that has no demonstrable notability, see WP:FILM Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete --
JForget 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Prod removed by article's creator and sole author. Prod read: "One unreferenced passing comment does not grant notability. If it hasn't been officially announced and this is all the info there is, then it isn't notable. see WP:CBALL" -- Icarus ( Hi!) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Canley ( talk) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete bit part teen actor sourced to imdb & myspace, nn fails WP:N & WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Canley ( talk) 12:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn company fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:CORP. KM World, a widely read trade journal, has named Teragram among the top 100 companies in Knowledge Management (see ref in article). Their software is used by major search engines and others. Yes, it is a small company, but WP:CORP explicitly says "arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations". (By the way, I am not and never have been employed or otherwise engaged by Teragram, but I respect their work.) -- Macrakis ( talk) 23:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. jj137 ♠ 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Nom under WP:NN. Non-notable individual who won some kind of a competition to shoot a bear, and there was apparently a bit of a media storm about whether shooting a bear should be a competition prize. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 22:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has no
reliably sourced evidence of
notability.
Tagged with {{
notability}}
23 November 2007
with no improvements in the interim.
I initially tagged the article with {{
prod}}
stating: "Article lacks evidence of
notability, consisting of
plot and
trivia", but immediately returned and
redirected the article to
List of Heroes episodes#Season 1: 2006-2007 as more apropos. Redirection
reverted by
Edokter (
talk ·
contribs): "Revert redirect/contest PROD. Please send to Articles for Deletion." Per user's request. —
pd_THOR |
=/\= | 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
Secondly, I prefer/advocate the redirection of the page as I attempted to do initially (see above). a) This would preserve the integrity of internal links pointing to this page and b) would preserve the history of the page, so that should the requisite real-world resources for notability come out, further editors can restore sections of the original article w/o the duplication of effort. However, as noted initially, my redirection of the page to its appropos target was reverted, and I was pointed "to Articles for Deletion" instead.
Failing redirection, the article does not meet the notability guideline for articular inclusion. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Secondly, I don't understand where you're coming from with the assertion that Wikipedia should have equitable articles as any specialist encyclopedia. I'm pretty sure there's no basis for that; am I misunderstanding you on this point? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The Transhumanist 09:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Deleting this article would result in the plot summary "going down the drain". That hard work can only be retained by keeping the article. Or asking it be undeleted by an admin should it warrant. Or copied to your userspace. Or watching/reading about the episode and rewriting it.
Ultimately, this stupid AfD process wastes hundreds of hours of work every day (if not more so). But it's instrumental in keeping Wikipedia an encyclopedic resource as opposed to an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm sorry you disagree with that policy, but it is. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus. The article is kept without prejudice to re-submission. -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 06:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J0HNNY
Does not assert notability in any way. Claims of an international tour aren't backed up by any reliable sources; a search for sources turned up bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result is Keep - A strong majority below want to keep it. Notability is established via a Spin reference. There should be enough of the article left after the hype is removed for a stub. The editors interested in this subject can rebuild it from there. The Transhumanist 12:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 6. The article had been tagged and speedied as not asserting importance per WP:CSD#A7. However, another user restored the article and providing a source from Spin magazine to help establish importance and notability through coverage in a reliable source. This restoration was again speedied through a seeming miscommunication. The deleting admin has agreed that the article be restored and there was agreement that it should be listed at afd. Hiding T 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, establishes basic notability; appeared on a famous artist's mixtape. Also, as pointed out, could use some time for sourcing. I'd support a relisting for deletion if the article's deficiencies are unaddressed after a few months. Glass Cobra 17:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable rapper, article is sorely lacking references. Artist has released mixtapes but no actual albums, no hit singles. Fails WP:MUSIC. If artist becomes notable some day in the future, article can easily be re-created. Precious Roy ( talk) 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Allen3 talk 01:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. Defaulting to keep. J-ſtan Contribs User page 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student resource center. Prod declined. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
While this article asserts that it is notable due to it being the first co-ed professional Recording Industry fraternity, no sources are provided, and two quick Google searches find nothing aside from MySpace and recruiting pages mentioning the group ( link 1, link 2). An internal search of the the MTSU University website yields nothing either. — Huntster ( talk • email • contribs) 20:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Glass Cobra 17:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable karate practitioner. Seems to assert notability based on "commitment to his students," founding of a non-notable karate organization, and being traveled. Declined SPEEDY so listing it here. Redfarmer ( talk) 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Shihan Dan S. Soller is founder of the Phoenix Karatedo Association, Kyokushinkaikan, an international karatedo organization comprising nearly a dozen dojos scattered throughout the world. His original instructor was Kancho Raymond Elmore, and Elmore's original instructor was Hulon Willis, a pioneer in the proliferation of Kyokushin Karate in the United States. nidanesquire, 1-6-08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidanesquire ( talk • contribs)
Shihan Dan S. Soller is founder of the Phoenix Karatedo Association. The Association itself is a direct outgrowth of the Elmore School of Karate; Shihan Raymond Elmore was Shihan Soller's original instructor, and, in an act of respect for his instructor, Shihan Soller named Shihan Elmore as the Phoneix Karatedo Association's first Kancho - i.e., Chairman. Shihan Soller assumed the title of Kancho upon the death of Shihan Elmore in June, 2006, an action that is not unusual among traditional styles of karatedo. -nidanesquire, 1-7-2008
Hulon Willis did found the Phoenix Karatedo Association. He was Kancho Raymond Elmore's original instructor, and Kancho Elmore was Kancho Dan Soller's original instructor. Thus, the Phoenix Karatedo Association grew out of the ryu - i.e., school - originally created by Hulon Willis, but it was not founded by Willis. The Australian Webpage linked above is inaccurate in this regard. -nidanesquire, 1-10-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidanesquire ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Snowy delete as obvious hoax. Everything Stan Lee touched in his career has been covered someplace online, so this should turn up results. It doesn't. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Googling Ghanjiman returns no hits. Kaaga has more success, but mostly because it's a place in Kenya. Likewise, I've not been able to find either with a quick browse through Marvel and Stan Lee related sites. Finally, I cannot remember ever reading any of Ghanjiman's adventures - and I have spent far too much time reading Marvel comics. Gaffertape ( talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 02:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
PROD removed by originator. This is unsourced, a neologism, not notable, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. JohnCD ( talk) 20:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Not really notable engouh. Philip Stevens ( talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a hoax. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm calling hoax on this one. A Google search for "Josh Shadik" returns one hit, for a musician. Likewise, although the article doesn't specify the event and trawl through world records for various 100m swimming events in the 40s, 50s and 60s doesn't yield any Josh Shadiks or any variations on the name. Gaffertape ( talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Event Time 100m Free Josh Shadik, USA 55.4 Hiroshi Suzuki, JPN 57.4 Göran Larsson, SWE 58.2 400m Free Jean Boiteux, FRA 4:30.7 OR Ford Konno, USA 4:31.3 Per-Olof Östrand, SWE 4:35.2 1500m Free Ford Konno, USA 18:30.3 OR Shiro Hashizune, JPN 18:41.4 Tetsuo Okamoto, BRA 18:51.3 100m Back Yoshi Oyakawa, USA 1:05.4 OR Gilbert Bozon, FRA 1:06.2 Jack Taylor, USA 1:06.5 200m Brst John Davies, AUS 2:34.4 OR Bowen Stassforth, USA 2:34.7 Herbert Klein, GER 2:35.9 4x200m Free USA (Wayne Moore, Bill Woolsey, Ford Konno, Jimmy McLane) 8:31.1 OR Japan 8:33.5 France 8:45.9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecoolestguy1111 ( talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Fatality (Mortal Kombat), the basics are already covered there. Glass Cobra 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Very minor gameplay element, fails Wikipedia:Notability. Master Bigode ( talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PeaceNT ( talk) 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable porn actress. Fails WP:PORN. Lots of Ghits to sites selling her videos. Redfarmer ( talk) 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable DJ. Article does not sufficiently assert notability. Prod removed by author without reason. Zero pages link to the article. Another user added notability, orphan, and unsourced tags to it. Article has no independent references and is uncategorized. Now there are independent sources, but neither seems reliable or useful. Reywas92 Talk 18:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail WP:BIO. Mentioned or quoted in passing in a few news stories, but nothing substantial. Jfire ( talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PeaceNT ( talk) 06:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
biography of the author of a book and founder of a website, both about "self-empowerment", neither notable. Pseudo-advertising. jnestorius( talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The arguments for deleteion were generally that there currently aren't any reliable sources in the sense of academic or journalism-type sources that cover it in any depth. The argument that Mind map-related software is a new field rendering it hard to find secondary sources covering individual products in depth is noted, but this argument tends to cut in favor deletion rather than keeping. The WP:N and WP:V policies tend to favor waiting until new fields receive secondary coverage at the detail level before providing articles at that level. The subject can still be included in a general article on mind-map related software. -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 07:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, beta software. Article has been without sources since creation in Nov'07. Ronz ( talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC). reply
I have moved this discussion below the main set of !votes in order to maintain readability. wikiwatcher9999's comment immediately below refers to the initial delete rationale provided by Ronz above. Note also that comments not directly relevant to the deletion discussion have been moved to the talk page. -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply
As for the source's reliability, Cheesaer1, that is what is under dispute. Your asserting that they are not is called "assuming the consequent", or trying to prove the conclusion by assuming it is true. This is a well known logical fallacy. Please note that your posts will be taken more seriously if you don't argue using logical fallacies. As for the removal of material by Ronz and its nature, actually, here's the the original version: [ [2]] and here's the version after Ronz was done with it, and which he flagged. [ [3]]. As for tis beign beta, where I work it goes alpha, then beta, then released versions leading up to a 1.0 release. So you stand corrected by a professional software developer. If your shop does differently, it is helpful to keep in mind that your opinion is not the epicenter of all perspective, but see my comment about assuming the consequent earlier. Thank you for participating in this forum by the way. wikiwatcher9999 ( talk) 21:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999 reply
The article is specifically NOT well sourced as of today Jan ( 2008, when it starts talking about versioning, I have worked at MANY shops and that is NOT ALWAYS the the versioning process, although it SOMETIMES is the versioning process. Not only did you get the reality wrong, you cited a bad article to boot. But you know how it is, you can't trust anything Wikipedia says. Now I know why. 69.137.246.27 ( talk) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999 reply
The result was delete. PeaceNT ( talk) 06:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
"Unverifiable" is more like it. I couldn't find a single source that could verify the track listing, or anything else about this album besides its lead-off single and initial release date -- and I don't think that either of those is enough for a whole page on the album. Given Jo Dee's recent lack of hits, and given Curb's track record (still waiting on that Amy Dalley album), I would be deliciously surprised (couldn't resist) if this ever saw the light of day at all. (Update: Apparently it's been shelved.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. PeaceNT ( talk) 06:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
None of these books (a children's activity book, a poster book, a trivia book, a funfax and a glow-in-the-dark sticker book) pass the notability criteria for books. A previous redirect to List of Primeval books and novelisations was undone by the article creator.
The result was delete. PeaceNT ( talk) 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about an Unverifiable Music Album UzEE ( Talk • Contribs) 02:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. PeaceNT ( talk) 07:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. It's natural to sympathise with the basic premise of this article but basically it's a non-neutral essay not a balanced encyclopedia article. Fails WP:OR - the author's first posting of this article states "pasting in an old term paper i wrote". Fails WP:SOAP because it's an opinion piece and lacks a detached and balanced analysis. andy ( talk) 16:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PeaceNT ( talk) 07:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
procedural nomination— version brought to AFD: Previously considered at AFD as part of a massive multiple nomination. PROD nominator states: "Does this series of ships have any real-world notability?" I would answer this with an echoing "no". User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 13:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin close. LaMenta3 ( talk) 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is a just duplication of the history of the United Federation of Planets and the Star Trek Earth history article, sprinkled with OR, and should be deleted for lack of notability outside of these which already extensively cover this topic. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, no content worth merging. Glass Cobra 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I am an SG-1 fan, but this fictional topic is nonnotable since even the Unas (Stargate) aren't that notable, it's completely unsourced, dictionary-like, and it basically contains nothing that I could use for a merge. The article somehow never got a {{ stargateproject}} banner for its talkpage despite its 2.5 years of existance, and it was/is not included in any Stargate category (I just found this article by accident). I expect the result to be rather obvious, but I think the age of this article requires AFD rather than a PROD. – sgeureka t•c 16:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete or transwiki if possible if its listing is not a copyright violation. Collectonian ( talk) 07:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
nominate for deletion non-notable song T- rex 16:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect all to The_Onion#Reporters_and_editors. Editors may wish to Merge information to expand this section of the redirect target. BLACKKITE 14:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The article demonstrates no notability based on reliable sourcing, and as such it is just a repetition of the content of various humorous letter written by this character found on The Onion. As such, it is just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 16:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons mentioned above, as well as failing WP:FICTION:
as well as these two:
The result was delete. - PeaceNT ( talk) 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The references for this article are either self-generated or self-serving and none seem like reliable sources. The article also seems to be as much about a company as about an individual, and whatever notability attaches to the company (not much, seemingly) has been asserted on behalf of the individual, it seems. This was a contested speedy and if there is notability here, I'd like to see the AfD process sort it out. Accounting4Taste: talk 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - PeaceNT ( talk) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
An unsubstantiated protologism/neologism, no reliable sources. I offered the creator some time to provide sources and he stated that he would be unable to do so (see Talk:Rokh & tokh) because of the phrase's newness. I couldn't find any English sources but perhaps there are some in another language; if so, I felt this would be a good way to get them into the article. Accounting4Taste: talk 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, non-admin closure. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong delete. Unencyclopedic content. Nothing to be salvaged here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To clarify: This is a list of chapters in manga, not a list of manga. Please bother to click the article before commenting, thanks TheBilly ( talk) 15:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark ( talk) 01:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Redundant band list - content is already covered in Category:Christian metal groups Funeral 15:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - PeaceNT ( talk) 15:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
(previously contested PROD) The group does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. I can find no "buzz" anywhere about them. The sources are myspace pages, plus one more link that I can't get to work. Joyous! | Talk 15:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted per A7 -- jj137 ♠ 02:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I think this is a hoax. Two of the five links don't work, the others all lead to the same place and don't provide anything about "Alex Levis", and five minutes' search (which is all I think it's worth} turns up no confirming information. JohnCD ( talk) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - PeaceNT ( talk) 15:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Redundant band list, easily replaceable with Category:Christian rock groups. Funeral 15:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
procedural nomination—
version brought to AFD: This went through a PROD-dePROD cycle in February 2006 and was PROD-nominated again in January 2008 (
diff between PROD-nominated versions). The recent
PROD-nominator stated "A good faith effort to find references has failed to find significant coverage in
reliable sources in order to comply with
notability requirements. The search for references has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from clicking these links: Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient
notability." User:Ceyockey (
talk to me) 13:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Closed. This is premature, folks. The page is still at DRV. If you find a page restored -- not recreated -- in this manner, be sure to check the page log and the page history, both of which explained the situation in this case. This page may be on AfD again soon, after the DRV, but this nomination is void, having been begun with a deeply incorrect assumption. Xoloz ( talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This article was already deleted after this previous AfD. Now the page has been recreated but I cannot find the reason for this, nor any significant improvement on the causes that made the article deleted six months ago, so I re-nominate the article for deletion. Please consult the article and the former AfD before giving your opinion. The main issue is about notability according to WP:BIO (no books on him, no coverage into reputable mainstream media). SyG ( talk) 13:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yes, consensus appeared to be merge, but is there anything really to merge? Plus, no section to put it in, no reason to mess up an article as a result. Wizardman 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. While I'm sure these dolls are good sellers, there's nothing notable to say about them beyond the mere fact of their existence -- which isn't really worth more than a brief mention in the main Hannah Montana article. Powers T 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 02:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism with no sources, with a bit of original research as a topping. — Coren (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result wasKeep interested editors may merge/edit as they see fit. JERRY talk contribs 02:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This is completely unencyclopedic. Pope John Paul II should be about his biography, not a seperate article in and of itself. In fact, I have found no other "Biography of" articles here. Since Pope John Paul II's article size is getting to be a problem, we could split it into separate articles on periods of his life such as Early life of Jan Smuts. My user account ( talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Addhoc ( talk) 15:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable company. Harland1 ( t/ c) 12:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 18:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable player-created content for a game. Doesn't assert notability, fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. I would speedy it except I'm not sure of the category. (can db-web be used?) TheBilly ( talk) 12:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, since none of the articles contained a substantive claim to notability and all were created to advertise the subject. All have been previously speedied. All are the work of single-purpose accounts.
This article, although apparently well referenced, concerns me. The idea of a notable bass player, at 16, strikes me as improbable, though of course not impossible. I have my doubts over the provenance of the sources; they appear very specific but vague at the same time, e.g. "Hudson, 2006 p. 142." What is this? "Audio Mag" also appears dubious.
The creating author was Chris funk bass ( talk · contribs), perhaps this is a autobiography. I would like to assume good faith, but it appears to me an article on a plainly non-notable subject cleverly written to avoid deletion. Mattinbgn\ talk 11:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages about groups that Chris Frangou has supposedly performed with and are also written by User:Chris funk bass. I have the same concerns with these articles as above:
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 08:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Self-promotion, fails to meet critera at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Subjects claim to fame, club hit "It's Teazie" gives me zero hits at Google. Thuresson ( talk) 09:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, though cleanup is certainly called for.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT Song lyrics. John Nagle ( talk) 08:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be the full lyrics of a song, or the text of a ritual or prayer. WP:NOT para. 2.9 applies. Possible copyvio. -- John Nagle ( talk) 08:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and cleanup. J-ſtan Contribs User page 01:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.
Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long, Charles S. Venable, Archibald C. Godwin, Cullen A. Battle, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark ( talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.
Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long, Charles S. Venable, Archibald C. Godwin, Cullen A. Battle, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge - duplicate article. Addhoc ( talk) 21:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.
Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long, Charles S. Venable, Archibald C. Godwin, Cullen A. Battle, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Fram ( talk) 12:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.
Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long, Charles S. Venable, Archibald C. Godwin, Cullen A. Battle, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sufficient coverage satisfies WP:BIO, and additional citations added since the nomination indicate that it also satisfies WP:V. Any remaining copyright concerns may be taken up at WP:CP. Non-admin close. -- jonny- m t 05:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.
Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long, Charles S. Venable, Archibald C. Godwin, Cullen A. Battle, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The subject satisfies WP:BIO, and the information provided below indicates that he also satisfies WP:V. Any remaining copyright concerns may be taken up at WP:CP. Non-admin close. -- jonny- m t 05:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
User keeps placing original research material that is not sourced with verifiable references.
Cross AfD: Armistead L. Long, Charles S. Venable, Archibald C. Godwin, Cullen A. Battle, Robert D. Johnston, David G. McIntosh, Montgomery D. Corse, Robert Ransom, Jr., and James B. Walton - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable, only citations are subjects own website Legotech ( talk) 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fram ( talk) 12:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Self-promotion, fails WP:CORP Jfire ( talk) 07:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Addhoc ( talk) 15:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted as Christopher Bays?, seems to be nonnotable kickboxer. Don't think it can be PRODed. VivioFateFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 07:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - PeaceNT ( talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted via AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (videogame) in March 2007 per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N. I found no independent coverage from reliable sources, and game is still not even scheduled for release, so it appears to fail again on the same counts. Note that earlier versions of this incarnation of the article actually had more content; the author reduced it to its current state shortly after I removed an interwiki link xe had added to it at Battle of Normandy. Maralia ( talk) 07:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The only valid speedy deletion criterion here would be re-creation of previously discussed and deleted content. I've had a look at 1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (videogame) ( AfD discussion). It's not exactly the same article as this one, but all of the arguments from the prior AFD discussion, about documenting something that has yet to be shown to the world, appear still to apply from what this article says alone.
However, it has been almost seven months. Sources may have appeared in the meantime. All of the editors above asking for speedy deletion on invalid grounds haven't helped AFD one whit with the rationales that they gave; and if I were the administrator closing this discussion, I'd simply discount their rationales entirely. They would actually help AFD by double-checking that it is still the case, since the last AFD discussion, that no independent sources exist. Looking for sources onesself is what one is supposed to be doing at AFD, and one of the reasons that AFD involves more than 1 pair of eyes, as explained in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
I applaud Lenticel and Maralia for having done this. Everyone else take note: That is what you are supposed to be doing at AFD. Uncle G ( talk) 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 02:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Article seems to be a autobiography of a nonnotable person. VivioFateFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 07:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was (Not very) Speedy delete g7, author blanked the page. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The same editor just deprodded this article without explanation, as well, so again, here is the nominator's rationale: NN, 6 Google Hits, Party Leader's article was just deleted in AfD) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
One of the article creators just removed the PROD without explanation. I object to this kind of behavior and so am taking it to an AfD, with the nominators rationale for a PROD as follows: NN, 6 Google Hits, Party Leader's article was just deleted in AfD Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Page is a single line from the subject's own press materials, lack of citations for notability Legotech ( talk) 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. There may be some merit in the Facebook part of the story being mentioned alsewhere, but Ms Rengel herself was not notable. BLACKKITE 14:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The only claim to notability seems to be her murder, which of itself does not satisfy notability standards. HookOnTheWall ( talk) 06:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete It's a sad story but it's also a clear case of
WP:NOT#NEWS
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 07:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete --
JForget 02:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
I don't think this is notable, but in any case it seems to constitute original research. -- Menti fisto 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Ironically, the search for sources turns up a priorism, a concept in philosophy which we don't have an article on. We should be ashamed of even considering giving a joke religion "more time" before putting it up for deletion when genuine encyclopaedic topics with this name have yet to be covered. Uncle G ( talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as full of lies. DS ( talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoaxy. "Pteris Nodulosa groinus" gets 0 GHits, not to mention that hosing yourself down with herbicide seems like a bad idea. Source links are unrelated. sho y 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete All the sources are unreleated! Firsts source: An AIDs advocate, second source: a lawn fertilizer company Third source: A biodiversity company VivioFateFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 06:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
obviously not a hoax. The Ferns plagues the people of the upper north west of our country. please do not abuse your deletion privileges.
The result was delete. Addhoc ( talk) 15:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, so here we are. Many past deletion discussions (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft locations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major cities in World of Warcraft, and probably some others I can't find) have found World of Warcraft locations insufficiently notable to merit articles. sho y 05:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
[[wowwiki:Orgrimmar]]
. --
Izno (
talk) 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 02:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a list of something... but is both unsourced and has very low contextual material. VivioFateFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 04:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 00:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This article does not meet WP:NOTE; it is little more than a collection of columns responding to the column that is the subject of the "article" Unschool ( talk) 04:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
User:Unschool--About the piece being "little more than a collection of columns...": If it wasn't structured like that, then you would be accusing me of engaging in original research.
So please allow me to repeat -- but rephrase -- my request: I would greatly appreciate it if someone would be kind enough to precisely show what needs improvement. Potshots from the peanut gallery are neither welcome nor desired.
-- NBahn ( talk) 06:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Having said that, what constructive criticism can I offer? Frankly, I have some serious issues with the layout. Unless an article is actually a "list", and titled as such, then it should be compiled in a prose format. An article written appropriately is something that I can read to someone else, and they will be able to follow the article's flow. But this article has no flow, because it does not have one sentence which follows another. It's just not stylistically correct.
But that really is a moot point, and one that I shouldn't belabor, because, most importantly, I think that the article fails to meet the standards of notability. Even if you wrote this in the most flowing prose, I'd still've probably nominated it for deletion. Klein is a columnist. His job is to provoke thought and even controversy within the political dialogue in America. And other columnists often respond to and rebut their fellow columnists' articles. I started regularly reading political columns over thirty years ago, and this just seems perfectly ordinary to me, Nbahn. I just don't see any notability.
I admire the huge amount of work you put into this. I know that it hurts to have others denigrate your efforts. But don't mistake that for denigrating you. Anyone willing to put that much work into an attempt at an article will surely have good things to bring to this encyclopedia. With more time and experience, you'll someday probably look back at this discussion and better understand what is being said here. Good luck. Unschool ( talk) 07:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to A1 (band) without prejudice to recreation as stand-alone if independent reliable sources claiming notability can be uncovered. BLACKKITE 14:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
procedural nomination— version brought to AFD: This was found PROD-nominated despite a prior trip to AFD; see diff between version at time of AFD closure and PROD nomination. PROD nominator stated "Not notable enough on his own to have his own page. Possibly merge to A1 (band)". User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 04:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to A1 (band) without prejudice to recreating as a stand-alone article if suitable sources confirming notability can be uncovered. BLACKKITE 14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
procedural nomination— version brought to AFD: Found PROD-nominated despite prior trip to AFD; consider diff between AFD-closed and PROD-nominated versions. PROD nominator stated "Not notable enough on his own to have his own page. Possibly merge to A1 (band)." I would tend to agree with the merger proposal, but that is an editorial decision that didn't require PROD-nom, unfortunately. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 04:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The Result was Speedy Delete - G4. -- Michael Greiner 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable wrestler. Googling yields 272 hits, of which the top hit is the Wiki article. Article seems vaguely like a hoax; also fails WP:RS and WP:N. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to be an WP:OR essay. While thorough, interesting, and referenced, Wikipedia is not the place for original research like this. Lankiveil ( talk) 04:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 02:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable convention. Reads like an advertisement, cites no resources and does not assert notability. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Deserves discussion [Moved from PROD] - appearance at wikibooks is not sufficient reason for Prod deletion Mostlyharmless ( talk) 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep the redirect, current title is a sufficiently notable subject, redirect is a possible searchterm for it. Fram ( talk) 13:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Orphaned Article, no sources and can't be found online Cahk ( talk) 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Chipnet is included with every Dutch-issued bank pass (the card used to withdraw cash from ATMs). It is therefore in widespread use. Loading stations are located next to many ATMs. It is used for payment in office canteens, public buses, for car parking, and in many shops. As an foreigner living in the Netherlands for the past six years, I can easily understand why it is regarded as the world's leading electronic cash deployment. This article is weak but as useful placeholder until it is improved. Tim Richardson ( talk) 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I added two references, the second of which graphs the growth in transactions over 8 years. Chipknip was used 165m times in 2006: considering the population of the Netherlands is around 16m people, it is a significant electronic cash implementation. Tim Richardson ( talk) 05:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply
procedural nomination—
version brought to AFD: Article was nominated for PROD-deletion and declined in September 2007, the PROD-nominated again (
diff between PROD-nominated versions). The most
recent PROD nominator did not provide a reason; the
prior PROD nominator stated "Notability not proven. Being the first "board certified clinical dermatologist in Minnesota" is not sufficient grounds for notability. Article appears to be promotional in nature." I think this person is borderline notable; his notability derives from being a talented and articulate doctor practicing rural medicine - which is relatively rare in and of itself. My feeling is that if he were working in someplace like New York or London, he would blend into the crowd of dermatologists. User:Ceyockey (
talk to me) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Ioeth ( talk contribs friendly) 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply UFC 84UPDATE: User has since blanked the page, apparently noticing his mistake. I've therefore tagged the main page as a candidate for speedy deletion. Gromlakh ( talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC) reply See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_83 page, same reasons, purely speculative, nothing confirmed about the event. Gromlakh ( talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply Expedia, Inc.adds no new information; most information in this article is already in Expedia. They are basically the same thing; does not need a new article. If needed, a new category can be added to Expedia Save-Me-Oprah ( talk) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Random Fixer Of Things ( talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply Steven HabermanContested prod. AFAICT, The reason given for contesting the prod is that he's a dean. Do we need an article on every dean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply The History of Truth
Unsourced crystal ball article about a film with no distributor, no director and no cast, because the producer "has keept every single detail of the film in secret". Possible hoax, too - the sole external link is to a website which has nothing to do with this alleged film other than having "History" and "Truth" in its name. Stormie ( talk) 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, no prejudice to merge if someone wants to do it. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply Jon Cleary & the Absolute Monster GentlemenAfDs for this article:
I'm requesting an opinion on the notability of this one. He did receive one article of coverage with BBC Nottingham, plus the Rolling Stone article, but other than that, all Ghits seem to be for music stores selling his albums and networking sites like Myspace. I'm torn on this one because, on one hand, he did receive two reviews in semi-major sources. On the other hand, it would seem like he would need a little more to establish notability. Redfarmer ( talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply As a writer, Cleary has tracks on 'Souls Alike' and Silver Lining (both charted) (Bonnie Raitt) and on 'Phantom Blues' (Taj Mahal, very notable). I don't want Wikipedia to be advertising for him, but I think he fits within the criteria. Drpixie ( talk) 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply I think he, rather than the band, is the notable one. I'd be happy to merge the band info into the Cleary page, if we agree. Drpixie ( talk) 03:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Person appears to be non-notable. Consensus apparent. Rudget . 12:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply Andrew Sniderman
Not notable bio. Was speedied per A7 once before. Still doesn't assert significance, but I thought I would bring it here for consensus. jj137 ♠ 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. It can be recreated when there is actually some credible information about the event. BLACKKITE 14:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC) reply UFC 83Clear case of
crystalballing. Although the page (currently) lists a date certain and location certain, the source cited shows no date is confirmed, no venue is confirmed, no city is confirmed, and doesn't even mention UFC 83. Everything is purely speculative at this juncture. Voluminous precedent
here
Gromlakh (
talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete G3 by User:Gimmetrow, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 03:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply Kirsty Ann Kaulitz
I believe this is a hoax. No evidence of this person existing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white ( talk • contribs)
The result was csd a7 -- Y not? 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply The FranticDoesn't seem notable according to WP:MUSIC. Please note. I believe there may be several different bands which have used the same name. neonwhite user page talk 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 23:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC) reply SorudoThis nom is in behalf of User:CultureDrone, per a request here. The article lacks reliable sources, and it fails WP:DICDEF. J-ſtan Contribs User page 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply Aaron CotteralNon-notable athlete. Never played in the regular season of a professional league, just one pre-season game. Pastordavid ( talk) 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Addhoc ( talk) 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply Spring ThomasAfDs for this article:
Recreation of a deleted article from prior AFB. Still doesn't satisfy WP:BIO Vinh1313 ( talk) 00:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep now that article has been updated with independent sources. NawlinWiki ( talk) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC) reply U.S. CrushWhen I opened the page my first thought was that my screen had turned red due to the large amount of dead links, This article is about a defunct band, it has no references, and some examples of its blue links are to the years 1996, 2000, 2002, and to the Californian Punk Scene, which doesn't exactly lend itself to the articles notability, or lack there of. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/ (C) 14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Weak keep; AMG seems to assert notability. Mention of KROQ wouldn't hurt, either. StaticElectric ( talk) 07:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Spebi 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC) reply Brisbane LadiesNon-notable song lyrics, inappropriate for an encyclopedia - Shiftchange ( talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. D.M.N. ( talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply Martin Galvannon-notable Alexf( Talk/ Contribs) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
|