The result was Keep (NAC). American Eagle ( talk) 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable flash game; the sources are all blogs or similar; could not establish notability from a reliable source through Googling Chzz ► 23:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non- verifiable article. Although the assertion of notability is made through junior national championships in equestrian events (which may fall WP:ATHLETE nonetheless), there are no reliable sources to back up the claims. Accordingly, the general notability guidelines are also not met. — C.Fred ( talk) 23:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Band which is not yet notable and fails WP:MUSIC on all counts. dramatic ( talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. This unsourced article about a random comedian's catchphrase does not warrant its own article. Little Professor ( talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Another recreation of a previously deleted non-notable future album. Has been tagged but still no reliable, third-party, sources can be found. Fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL.
Delete. No reliable sources exist. Fences and windows ( talk) 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Jeffree Star, or else one of the other venues proposed below. Content may not meet notability criteria alone but could be used elsewhere, what to move and where is a matter for a talk page discussion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, non-charting song. Very few reliable sources (actually, I think they're all primary sources). By the same token, I'm nominating all these other songs by Jeffree Star:
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This micronation appears to be a hoax. Searches for sources return no results except for this website, which is not a reliable source. Cunard ( talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The sources are questionable at best. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Ignoring the obvious glowing content masquerading as information, article is missing reliable sources to confirm notability of a creative individual. IMDB credits are minor at best, and a simple news search didn't reveal any articles about the individual apart from the minor publication already listed. tedder ( talk) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Default to keep. This is certain to be renominated if sourcing doesn't materialize. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources cover this organization substantially enough. Whip it! Now whip it good! 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
While the subject of the article may be considered notable at one point, the band and album have currently received, at most, trivial coverage. Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 21:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. BJ Talk 00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod - prod tag removed by article's author without explanation. Original prod reason was "lacks coverage in 3rd party sources." I would add that there is no real assertion of notabiliby, except that they have been signed. The only source is their MySpace. Delete. Dawn Bard ( talk) 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Advise renaming--discuss that on the article talk page DGG ( talk) 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Propaganda supported by only one Serbian reference. Reports concluded it false. [12] PRODUCER ( talk) 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
:Delete.Weak keep. There are few reliable sources either way. Simply pointing at a Google Book search is no use! Are those books reliable sources? What do they actually say? This is the report by Helsinki Watch reporting that they doubted there had been a massacre:
[13]. A NATO page mentions a report in the Serb press claiming it as a massacre:
[14], and another has this quote: "Savo Strbac, Director of the Veritas Information Center, rejected the suspicions that the 18 bodies of children found at Sijekovac were Serb children from Vukovar, as only a few children missing from Vukovar had been registered with the Veritas Center".
[15] Milosevic repeated the claim at his war crimes tribunal:
[16], and the Bosnian Serb government did too:
[17]. In the absence of clear reports in reliable sources, I support deletion.
Fences and windows (
talk)
21:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Prod contested, thus listed here - Unencylopedic opinion piece on the merits of civil defence authorities Passportguy ( talk) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The notability of this article has not been established, and the sources remain unclear. T3chl0v3r ( talk) 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Based upon lack of in-depth coverage, even in Russian (which resulted in their article also being deleted) – Toon (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I've removed the PROD on this, as the talkpage comment implies that it is contested. This artist appears to fail the GNG. A brief google search only turns up self published stuff like here, facebook youtube etc. There is enough assertion of notability for it to not be speediable either. -- Ged UK 20:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I understand that you could not find a lot about me on Google search, and that is because I live in Russia, and the Russian Google search with my name in Russian Ибрагим Яжи, gives more results.
Please check out the discussion on the end of this page [20]
Sorry for keeping silence for a long time, actually I was very busy with the Russian edition, and discussion, also having my diploma process in Moscow conservatory. -- Ibrahim Yaji ( talk) 23:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was procedural close for reasons given below: this AFD appears to be an attempt to continue the controversy, so (if for no other reason than IAR) closing to reduce problems for the encyclopedia in general. Nyttend ( talk) 14:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
non notable controversy. Hytje ( talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
— Hytje ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC). reply
Sometimes trying to do something on here is impossible unless you make the few elite happy. Shamefull! Artintegrated ( talk) 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
You haven't explained how any other policy actually applies, by the way. It's no good just quoting abbreviations without explaining how the policy (not the abbreviation) actually applies to the case at hand. Uncle G ( talk) 19:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Second, WHY WHY WHY does this page HAVE to be about the domain dispute, and WHY is DanielRigal pushing that over and over again? ALL the "significant" RS /News covers the piece of art / intervention just as much as the domain issue (in the Sentinel, more so). I can see the point that this page cannot and should not be "a work of art on Wikipedia." But the story of that piece as an art intervention and performance - which includes the domain dispute - has already become very obviously significant, and CAN be written about in an encyclopedic way. Why don't you just change the page to reflect the way the news actually talks about it, its actual significance, rather than what people here think (whether pro or con, artist or wikipedian), and then protect the page? The sensationalism referred to here, the case law blah blah blah is how the blogs which are not "significant" talk about. The holy grail of mainstream press has more to say, and it's being ignored in this discussion. Artintegrated ( talk) 17:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Content It is really about the content of the articles outside of this discussion Artintegrated ( talk) 21:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply
NOTE There are many more KEEPS than Deletes. Please make a note of this. Artintegrated ( talk) 17:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 21:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable web concept with no third party reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 16x9 ( talk) 19:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: Article's name changed to " List of bloggers and blogs about home and family"by ↜Just me, here, now … 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC).
Note: Article's name changed to " List of parenting bloggers"by ↜Just me, here, now … 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC).
Note: Article's name changed back to original title, " Home and family blog," by ↜Just me, here, now … 23:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC).
Note: Per the stipulations at WP:CANVASSING, all participants of the discussion at " WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs have been "appropriately canvassed" (abiding by the strictures that such notifications be limited to a small number of neutrally selected editors) by ↜Just me, here, now … 07:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC).
-- to be filled with notable entries of its type. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply[...]Wikipedia's role as an almanac[...] ---WP:WIKIPROJECT LISTS, § "INCOMPLETE LISTS"
*::Delete. No, I think it's more
WP:CRYSTAL.
SimonTrew (
talk)
23:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC) (changed mind, see below)
reply
{Whispers} (...BTW, if you're following along here: This doesn't mean ya {raises voice} GOOGLE SEARCH! {speaks normally} the, somewhat long or awkward title.) ↜Just me, here, now … 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply[...T]here will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. ---WP:NEOLOGISM
In other words, the article had been up for but a few seconds before being nominated and you're worrying about sources? (Ya need a source for the sun being in the sky too? {wink} "OR" doesn't preclude editors and AfD reviewers just abiding by plain common sense btw....) ↜Just me, here, now … 00:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC) replyIn the midst of talking to other moms, these bloggers have discovered big business was listening. Companies like Graco and Johnson & Johnson are reaching out to mom bloggers, hoping to get a mention. Women value the opinion of other women, and if a blogger writes that she loves the little girls' orange butterfly sandals from the x-y-z shoe store, you can be certain a few other moms will head directly to x-y-z to buy them!---NBC NEWS
• Note: Article's name changed to " List of bloggers and blogs about home and family"by ↜Just me, here, now … 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC).
• Note: Article's name changed to " List of parenting bloggers" by ↜Just me, here, now … 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC).
I was vaguely aware there was an "under construction" tag that you can put on articles, well, under construction. The reason I didn't look it up, to be honest, was 'cause I imagined such a topic as the one I was writing on was a slam dunk to be notable. (What, with the percentage of the population that are moms and would be interested in reading something written by other moms.... And, what, with the fact that the Intenet's caused this phenomenon to happen.... And, what, with the tools of google search and the reading of news reports and whatnot to document the notability of such a fact.... )
I'm not complaining mind you. I have zero vested interest in writing about this subject. I don't read such blogs nor know anyone who writes them. (My own style of exposition is somewhat close to what I imagine their chattiness is, though.) And I'm not that "domestic," myself, either.
Anyway, I did customize a tag regarding "systemic bias" (sort of) that I posted on the article. Here's the rub (for real!): Wikipedians are predominantly men. And -- every pornstar in the adult film biz has a Wikipedia page. Coincidence? I don't mind notable pop culture topics being covered but do mind myopia about things in popular culture that should receive encyclopedic coverage in WP but haven't yet. It's like if you interrupted somebody reading The Economist and asked them which magazine is more popular, The Economist or Good Housekeeping, and the person didn't know. You'd think, "Hmm. You'd think an Economist reader would be more informed!"
So, with that long introduction, let me try a statistic to make the case for the notability for blogs about domesticity. Let's check the Alexa rankings of two blogs (at which, note, the ranking of #1 is at the top.) I checked Dooce (which blog I've never really read in my life, but is in my mommy blogger list). It's ranked at # 29,919 of all blogs. Then I checked the ranking for Andrew Sullivan (which I myself click over to several times a week!) It's ranked much much farther down the popularity list than Dooce at # 5,339,802. Yet, despite his fewer readers, I've got the feeling Wikipedia folks have heard of Sullivan and not Dooce (which until recently would have also been the case with me, after all).
What genre is Sullivan? We need a source for that, but before I get one I'll just clue you in. His is a polical blog. His site's tagline? "Of no party or clique."
But what is Dooce's tagline? "Talking a lot about poop, boobs, her dog, and her daughter." And as for that "future" time when some witty woman might be able to sit at home composing a witty, high-traffic blog on the Internet that's about sitting at home, blah blah...well, that's today in the here and now (with no WP:crystalballing required). And if you give me a chance I'll get references (Google hits for "mom" plus "blog"? news cites?) that the genre is notable. (The secondary motto on Sullivan's site? This quote from George Orwell: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.")
footnote - Note that Andrew Sullivan is on the list that's posted on Wikipedia at Political blog#Notable American political blogs and bloggers...yet then note Sullivan's actual share of the blog reading audience, per the above Alexa ranking of his extremely popular political blog, in comparison with Ms. Dooce's, of another blogging genre. ↜Just me, here, now … 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)
Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced page. Created 3 years too early. Tresiden ( talk) 19:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Clear consensus to delete. The rewrite has not addressed the concerns that this bio picks out a small part of the subject's life. Kevin ( talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Essentially, this is a woman that was loosely alluded to in a handful of biographical works, and was another person's secretary, who was at one point accused by a handful of people of possibly maybe perhaps having an affair with someone, but this was never shown to be true, and is a political rumor/ploy from 1988 disguised as a Wikipedia BLP article.
Delete, for BLP concerns, and for simple lack of genuine notability on her own. At most this deserves a one or two sentence sourced footnote on the George H. W. Bush article, and not even a redirect in our MediaWiki system. rootology ( C)( T) 15:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Strong keep. This is a woman who has multiple references over several decades, for what was an significant and long-lasting series of political positions and roles, and referenced as such in multiple reputable sources dealing with the first Bush era and his career. In and of herself, this is enough for notability for me; for example anyone researching Bush's career (as a president or earlier) will come across her name very quickly. Multiple mentions in reliable sources exist back to at least 1982 (well before any reporting of an alleged affair), and reputable media such as the Times and Time describe her in quotes such as "a dominant figure who has much to say about where Bush goes, what he does and whom he sees" and "You cannot overestimate her influence on Bush". [Cites added to article]. The article was poor in tone, and I've edited it somewhat to fix that. It's missing some information that we should have (family, background, current retirement, etc), but it seems clearly to me to be a notable person.
Regarding its quality, and any mention of the purported liaison, these are fixable cleanup issues. We don't delete an article on an otherwise notable person for that. In fact since the liaison is treated by good sources such as The Times as being effectively confirmed, which is unusual for a major newspaper of that quality, there is a good case we should not whitewash. It need only be as brief as: "in 1992, and following the Lewinsky scandal, allegations of a prior affair between Bush and Fitzgerald appeared in some major newspapers." End of subject. (Source: "Bush’s relationship with Fitzgerald finally became public during his re-election campaign in 1992" The Times). That is fair, and neutral. If we can find a significant statement by her about the claims, consider noting that too (NPOV) though thats pretty much implied anyway. But either way, the bio itself seems a good keep, and mention of that issue isn't in it at this point. FT2 ( Talk | email) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As it stands this article is inherently in violation of WP:NOR; there is clearly no conventional understanding of what constitutes a 'national icon' and the comments suggesting this can be ironed out through discussion on the talk page demonstrate a rejection of encyclopedic standards in favour of an idealised concept of consensus as fact. I note the phrase national icon is a possible search term so I'm recreating this as a redirect to national symbol. Flowerparty☀ 07:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
not official, or even coordinated, usage. Essentially it seems to be "things that represent country X to me". Ironholds ( talk) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
— 173.7.181.118 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Carlos Gardel is a national icon, by the way. ( source) Uncle G ( talk) 00:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Here are the fruits of my search:
Capitol: The United States Capitol: Designing and Decorating a National Icon.(Review)(Brief Article). Eric Linderman. Library Journal 125.10 (June 1, 2000): p122.
Washington Monument:Sam Durant at Paula Cooper. Anastasia Aukeman. Art in America 93.11 (Dec 2005): p139(1). Quote: "Any artist who considers pissing on the Washington Monument an interesting analysis and critique of that national icon's function deserves a good long look"
Golden Gate Bridge: Guarding the Golden Gate. Steve Harding. Soldiers Magazine 59.3 (March 2004): p24(5). Quote: "This bridge is a national icon," said CPT John T. Preston of the California Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 143rd Field Artillery Regiment.
The result was speedy deleted by R'n'B under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG ( talk) 19:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:BIO Brianga ( talk) 18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Regretfully, we do not yet have sufficient information. No prejudice agains re-creation if more becomes available. DGG ( talk) 21:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I think this one is one is a WP:BLP1E. There is one newspaper reference in which it is saids that it is believed to be connected with terrorism. The link is not valid anymore. Moreover, what happens if he is not connected with terrorism afterall? I think this is against WP:BLP. Magioladitis ( talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Mercantilism. Sandstein 06:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
term with no evidence of wider use. Ironholds ( talk) 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Nick ( talk · contribs) as a blatant copyright violation ( non-admin closure). KuyaBriBri Talk 19:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
No indication that this hotel is notable. Lacks 3rd party references. RadioFan ( talk) 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. only minor bilateral agreements [40] LibStar ( talk) 14:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another completely laughable combination (one of the worst I've seen) from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies and google news search turns up nothing except that both countries share economic problems [41]. and if you're going to say keep with the standard text of wait for centralised discussion, seriously ask yourself is Iceland-Argentina notable? LibStar ( talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Extensive piece, but just seems to be a CV, not particularly notable. Oscarthecat ( talk) 14:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted ( A2) by Syrthiss ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Anturiaethwr Talk 19:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Article has no English translation. English Wikipedia is not a foreign language article. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Peter Läng is not a notable footballer, failed WP:athlete, as he just played in Challenge League and he is not a Thai youth international, but Swiss youth internationals [45] Matthew_hk t c 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This article about a music composer includes no references, doesn't appear to be notable, no reliable and independent sources available, page appears to have been created and mostly written by its subject. Conical Johnson ( talk) 08:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Not really my subject, so perhaps I'm qualified as neutral. I can however read some German, and the German magazine sources are sufficient to show notability. As for some of the delete arguments: that business software is less notable than consumer software is not supported by policy. The article seems information, not promotional. Sources in the professional field are appropriate ones to show notability, they don't have to be general mass-consumer mainstream, just respected and reliable in its subject. DGG ( talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
While the article seems to be about a fully developed and published web browser
groupware system, I don't believe it meets the general
notability guidelines. Hoping to be proven wrong, though!
Khalfani
Khaldun
06:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
Tine 2.0 is not a webbrowser. Tine 2.0 is webbased groupware solution. Tine 2.0 meets the same criteria like any other project listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collaborative_software#Open_source_or_free_software . ( Lkneschke ( talk) 06:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC))— Lkneschke ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Note: Can someone explain why Tine 2.0 is not noteable but other less know opensource groupware projects are? Just have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:FreeCollabManageSoftware. Have a look at ProjectPier and Simple Groupware for example. Why got pages about these projects accepted? I don't see any difference. Tine 2.0 is at least noteable as these projects. You should apply the same rules to all comparable opensource projects. This means either you start a discussion to delete all comparable pages or you need to keep the Tine 2.0 page. Any other decision would be to act arbitrarily. ( Lkneschke ( talk) 05:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) reply
The result was delete. After examining each comment, I've determined that the arguments in favor of deletion bear more weight than those in favor of retaining the article. As a result, there is consensus to delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
fancruft and trivia Aurush kazemini talk 05:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
There may be three or four items worth moving to the article on Three's Company. Drawn Some ( talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 00:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Un sourced article about un popular game. Alexius08 ( talk) 02:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability. This is a product that was just launched by Nestle' August 2008, and doesn't seem to be notable. A search for the term Glowelle in Google Trends shows pronounced spikes in correspondence to marketing campaign launches, and no other background buzz. Most people looking at these numbers would conclude that the Wikipedia article was entered as a tool for internet commerce and word-of-mouth marketing campaign. P.S. I was confused comparing the guidelines in Articles_for_deletion and DEL as to what to do exactly. Perhaps tags I added to the article are not in the required orders, or superfluous.-- Gciriani ( talk) 12:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Challenged prod, no indication that this actor may meet WP:CREATIVE RadioFan ( talk) 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep - I withdraw my nom. in light of the responses below, further poking around and WP:SNOW. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organization. No significant non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:V. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as a G4 in its earliest forms, and a G8 in its later ones. The early version was an exact copy of the page deleted via this deletion discussion and deletable under G4. Later it was a redirect to a nonexistent page, deletable under G8. Euryalus ( talk) 12:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced list with little useful information. Whilst I would agree that a verifiable list of performances with details such as transmission dates would be useful, this is nothing of the kind. It needs some kind of official BBC playlist sourcing. From the talk page it appears the primary source for this list is extracts shown on "Top Of The Pops 2" which (a) does not provide the original transmission date, and (b) isn't necessarily a 100% reliable indication that TOTP ever showed the act (for reasons unknown it may have been edited out / not shown due to technical problems etc). As nothing in the article is reliable it should be removed and recreated only if it can be done so with references. I42 ( talk) 11:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
As this would be useful if properly sourced, shouldn't it be marked for cleanup rather than delete? 217.40.170.134 ( talk) 13:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This page consists entirely of original research that is not possible to source reliably as, on the whole, this information isn't available. Most existing websites which provide such information are fan-created and are not reliable. The article also contains many factual errors. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I would like to create the page again as Liana Mendoza has built up her resume with credits including reoccurring roles in American Horror Story: Hotel and Scandal. Both prominent television series. Is there a way to get an adminisrator approval on this? Artthings ( talk)
I found this article when an editor tagged it for CSD, but the editor gave a misguided rationale, so this is a bit of a procedural nomination. Besides having no references, it appears that the subject does not satisfy the entertainer criteria for notability. Law type! snype? 08:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination from the obsessive creator. Aust govt describes trade as modest. also no mention of any bilateral agreements [51] non resident ambassadors.google news search doesn't reveal much except they've competed in the same sporting competitions. [52] LibStar ( talk) 07:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident ambassadors. the Swiss Govt says Trade between the two countries is marginal. LibStar ( talk) 07:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted. Pages like these do not get to hang around. See the log.-- chaser - t 21:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a fringe / non-existent genre of music. Delete. JBsupreme ( talk) 06:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random laughable combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. there is not even 1 single agreement between these 2 countries according to Cypriot foreign ministry [53] LibStar ( talk) 05:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. BJ Talk 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. 2 minor agreements [54] LibStar ( talk) 05:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. BJ Talk 00:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. last agreement in 1963! [70] LibStar ( talk) 05:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 00:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic spam list of web software. Nakon 05:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Aside from the bad title, this article is trivia - it presents four meaningless, out-of-context numbers that, to the extent any of them is relevant, could easily be mentioned in one of our growing array of articles on swine flu (thank goodness Wikipedia wasn't around in 1918). Biruitorul Talk 05:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
state visit doesn't make an article. non resident embassies. no real third party coverage either [71] LibStar ( talk) 04:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep. Relations between these two states are as worthy of an article as between any two states. I have no connection to Iceland or Mexico. Robert Brockway ( talk) 04:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another laughable, random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies, in fact 1 ambassador on a different continent. only 1 minor bilateral agreement of 22 years ago. [81] do these countries even trade? LibStar ( talk) 04:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Admitted neologism for a storage solution sold by Altaro. Article amounts to little more than a dictionary definition. A google search shows that this term is used by just one company - Altaro. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 03:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Not only have these two not had relations for 60 years, there's also no indication relations were notable prior to 1949. The one salient fact, the switch in recognition, is noted here, here and here already. Biruitorul Talk 03:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted (G11) by Jayron32. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be notable, couldn't find any news coverage focussing on the company, only mentioned as an aside a few times. Article is really just advertising for the company. Fences and windows ( talk) 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
All four are non- notable demos with no independent coverage. —Gendralman ( Talk) 02:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep but preferably merge whenever a good target is decided upon. This is a notable example of an interesting topic, but it would be better placed and avoid redundancy in a larger article about the topic with a number of examples. Fram ( talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Individual "word puzzles" are generally not notable enough for their own articles, and this article does nothing to convince otherwise. The two online sources simply present the puzzle and the solution, and are not what are considered reliable sources anyway. The book cited is simply the book where the phrase originally appeared. The section on "extendability" (which I don't believe is an actual word at all) appears to be original research. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
My position is similar to the one I've taken in the Biblical Definition of God AfD, i.e. that (1) this content belongs on Wikipedia, but (2) it doesn't belong in an article with this title.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I turned to my trusty Fowler's (ISBN 0-19-869126-2; I have the 1996 edition) and found a substantial treatment of the phenomenon under "repetition". Arguably, this could go an article called Repetition (syntax).— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The decision of whether to create redirects, and if so where they should lead, is best left up to interested editors. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 18:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional character
Nikkimaria (
talk)
02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is unsourced, and appears to be original research ( WP:OR) - the author explains on the talk page that he "created this page and the category with the prima facie understanding of 'philosophical theory', i.e. theories about ideas, contrasted with scientific theories about observable data." In other words, he constructed the definition himself from the context in which the phrase is used.
The article title also appears to be a neologism WP:NEO, as a definition for it does not appear in any of the following publications:
I also looked up "Theory" in the above publications. Where it appeared at all, it referred to "Scientific theory" and not to the context presented in this article.
While "philosophical theory" is used all over the place on the Web, the two words appear to be paired colloquially to describe a wide range of things (ideas or views that happen to be philosophical in nature), rather than refer to a formal classification within the field of philosophy.
WP:NEO states: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."
The Transhumanist 01:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was userfy to User:Renaissancee/Sailing and Fighting Instructions for the time being. If it is properly rewritten, it may be moved back. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This was tagged as a disambiguation, but I don't see this as disambiguating anything. The only thing I see here is a long list of non-notable instructions issued by random people in the 1700s. The instructions are also completely unsourced as why these instruction should be included while others are not. Also, the disambiguation fails for the most part MOS:DABRL as a disambiguation should point to other articles, not a random assortment of redlinks. Tavix | Talk 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. sources presented, but no discussion on whether these meet the criteria for GNG, so erring on side of caution. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Only two 3rd party sources. Heavily edited by single-purpose accounts. Does not pass WP:N as the only published research seems to be from Human Givens Publishing. Wperdue ( talk) 01:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.94.89 ( talk) 11:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another laughable random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident ambassadors. the Estonian govt notes: "In 2007, Pakistan was Estonia’s 72nd largest export partner, while imports from Pakistan to Estonia ranked it as Estonia’s 44th largest import partner." "Estonia has made no investments in Pakistan." http://www.vm.ee/eng/kat_176/5431.html LibStar ( talk) 01:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
non-notable new age writer, referenced only to his own website. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game. Remurmur ( talk) 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pornographic (softcore) actress. See WP:PORNBIO. Can not verify her notability with reliable secondary sources. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike under WP:CSD#G4. Non-admin closure. BryanG ( talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
He's seven. A bit part in Desperate Housewives and bit-parts in other drama series does not make him notable. Ironholds ( talk) 01:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article is for one of several regional interest books that share this title. No indication the independent sources required to establish notability exist. Instead a search engine test shows all off-wiki references to the book are from online book vendors, library catalogs, or similar venues. Allen3 talk 18:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
A dance created by a non-notable bloke. The only references I can find are mirrors of WP and mirrors of the site that this thing references, namely a blog. Ironholds ( talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination. non resident embassies. google news doesn't reveal much about relations either [98] LibStar ( talk) 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Hamazkayin. Stifle ( talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I had originally redirected this, but the redirect was undone. Fails WP:Biography, as he is not really notable outside of the company he is on the board of. Cheers! Scapler ( talk) 02:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Entirely non-notable artist. No sources. Googling for the artist's name "Mario Jannelli" brings back nothing relevant, useful, and reliable. Not even a professional musician (article says he is "currently employed in the telecommunications industry") and the article was obviously originally created as vanity by User:M jannelli. Wickethewok ( talk) 19:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Dank55 under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG ( talk) 05:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined a speedy on this and am taking to AfD because language and transcription issues here can play havoc with finding sources. Gsearch isn't showing notability outside of her husband, Kang Ho Dong. Delete? Redirect? Exand with refs? I've really no idea. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to NARCh. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Contains unreliable/no sources. Players on team appear to be nothing more than locals who do not get paid. keystoneridin! ( talk) 20:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I was unable to reference to three silver medal wins in the infobox. Without those there's insufficient content and indication of notability to have an article. I'm not nominating for speedy in case I missed a useful source in a foreign language I can't read. - Mgm| (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect all to appropriate sections of Roxette.-- Aervanath ( talk) 22:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Roxette tours that consist mainly of an indiscriminate list of tour dates and/or a setlist. Totally fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. The only source is Roxette's own webpage of tour info, which maybe OK for the fans, but not for Wikipedia.
I am also nominating the following related pages:
For those of you not smelling of socks, you may want to drop by here too; WP:AfD/Room Service Tour (2nd nomination). Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Cannot find significant third-party sources through Google; the information cannot be verified. Anti venin 14:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable product; one model of baseball bat. Author removed prod tag with no explanation. NawlinWiki ( talk) 14:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
non-notable Tad Lincoln ( talk) 18:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Response to call for third-party sources yielded a toy-collector's fan site and a press release -- neither of them a reliable, third-party source to establish the product's notability -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Abnormally_Attracted_to_Sin#Track_listing. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Article makes no attempt to establish the notability of its subject. While it may be notable in the future, articles should not be created based on speculation that this may happen, even if the song is by a well-known artist. Khalfani Khaldun 19:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was MOOT, overtaken by events. Be careful merging an article that may be deleted because of GFDL issues, but it looks like consensus was running merge anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire - past ops) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP and WP:N. No significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources. Only trivial coverage in the form of name being noted in articles about the game Pop (which isn't all that notable either and its initial article was clearly created by Nnooo). Failed PROD with prod removed by article creator, User:Unoispam, who appears to be affiliated with said company. Also failed CSD as not clearly spam (though some sentences appear to have been lifted directly from the ELs listed). -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I apologise sincerely if any of my actions have been considered "Bad behaviour". It is quite apparant that I am a new user to Wikipedia and I am still unsure of how to contest a deletion page. Reading the notice, it said a contest was allowed if I was to remove it and write my reasons in the talk page, which is what I did. Futuremore, it is clearly mentioned that the program is not solely for WiiWare, but for a variety of different consoles. The large popularity of this program is quite apparant and the company IS expanding, which is the reason I feel the article should stand.
Unoispam ( talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is about a place that may or may not exist. No reliable sources have been provided to establish that it does. I offered to help the original author out if they could point me to any English sources, but they have not replied. I can find no such sources on my own, so being that the article is so poorly written I believe it is unsalvageable and should be deleted. Khalfani Khaldun 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Puff piece on non-notable film-maker. No career to speak of, other than one (very) short film and a friendship with a famous musician. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This article consists wholly of original research, it's been around for a few years, tagged for references, and has not been improved substantially. -- Stani Stani 00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Blogs and some amazon.com links do not amount to notability (nor do they conform to verifiability standards, either). The mixtapes they've released are not notable either. Delete, delete, delete. JBsupreme ( talk) 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I was wrong--I too could not find anything reliable enough after several tries DGG ( talk) 04:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. This was {{ prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. It verifiably exists and is potentially a notable organisation (although the current sources aren't great), so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride scent 22:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. This was {{ prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. This is a verifiable and potentially notable company, so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride scent 22:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. This was {{ prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. However, it's already survived an AFD discussion before and certainly looks at least potentially notable, so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride scent 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. This was {{ prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. His band have their own article, as does his album and four of his EPs, so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iride scent 22:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable EP. There is no coverage in reliable sources, and it fails WP:NALBUMS. Tim meh ! 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Bachelorette . Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a BLP about a reality television contestant from The Bachelor who is scheduled to be the next The Bachelorette. The article is very weak on content and does not establish notability beyond these two facts. Previous attempts were made to redirect, but those were reverted. It's not clear why what appears here could not be included on the individual Bachelorette season page on which she will be featured in the future. Plastikspork ( talk) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable+Advertising Travelbrit ( talk) 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply