Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 3
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
The result was merge to Zulu (film). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Pingfatzu
An esoteric philosophy, so esoteric that it produces scarcely any Google hits. It has received short shrift on the Portuguese Wikipedia having been speedied three times (incomprehensible, no context, etc.). Igor Buys, the author of the article mentions himself in it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. the guideline for amateur players is that they need to be successful at a national level and the argument that they aren't hasnt been refuted ]Pat Carter (golfer)
Reason the page should be deleted Abc518 (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Atticus: ...Dragging the Lake, Vol. 4
No evidence that this release actually exists. See record label website: [1] Nouse4aname (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] ATTICUS WEBSITE: http://civvies.biz/atticususa/product.php?productid=16237&cat=274&page=1 http://www.civvies.biz/atticususa/home.php I do not know how to cite things on Wikipedia but I can inform you I purchased this compilation album from an Atticus merchandise tent during the Vans Warped Tour this month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.147.34 (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to ]
|
The result was delete. ]Maya AbabadjaniAfDs for this article:
The subject of this article does not apparently meet the WP:Pornbio criteria, nor does this article otherwise appear to be about a notable subject. The standards for porn actor notability have been increased since the previous, 2008 nomination for deletion, when no consensus was achieved. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was keep. JForget 00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. per nominator, notability does not (typically) extend to anyone involved in a work. Consensus is to delete. tedder (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Chris Mowry
No third-party evidence of notability. While the principal creator/illustrator for notable comics might be notable, that doesn't mean everyone on the production team is. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep, he has authored bokos currfently for sale on amazon. under ISBN-13: 978-1600104572 and ISBN-10: 1600104576. He is notable. talk) 15:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Axiom stack
|
The result was Keep Cheers, I'mperator 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] LG15: The Last
It is the latest spin-off of the ]
Just because one show is notable, spin-offs of it don't automatically bypass ]
Question - is there a way to report Otterathome to request an investigation in his behavior? If you check the page history, you will see that now that it is obvious we are coming to a compromise, he stopped participating in the actual discussion, and he has instead changed his behavior to trying to discredit supportive posts by inventing a conflicts of interest for Milowent and trying to put the validity of Byronwrites' opinion into question, by flagging him for having "few or no other edits outside this topic". (Given that the same is true for me, and I'm not even registered, it's quite clear he's just attempting to artificially reduce the support a merging effort has.) He is also trying to downplay the significant support the page has in general, by implying in the header the page linked is a plain cry to vote for the page no matter what, while the users actually call for help improving the page:
And then on the next page,
Otterathome is cherry-picking a single post in a thread full of replies trying to improve the page and clearly stating one should explain why to keep, rather than just vote. In addition, the attempt to frame informing people of the deletion is somehow a dishonest attempt to skew the discussion, when, in fact, Notifying interested people " is just plain ridiculous.
I believe at this point, not even those of you who support the removal/merging of the page on notability grounds can deny that it is obvious Otterathome has some kind of underlying agenda, rather than the urge to improve Wikipedia. His refusal to discuss merging was telling enough, the fact that he now stopped discussing and resorts to these FUD tactics only underlines it.
So...is there some place I can go to have his behavior investigated?
|
The result was keep. Lack of references is WP:CSB and the ongoing improvements, this article is kept. Skomorokh 16:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. ]Junken Building (Pittsboro Pizzeria)
Several non-notable small-town buildings and businesses. No references or other evidence of notability. LP talk 22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should like to put on record the fact that 65.26.176.123 deleted "delete" comments by two other editors in this discussion, as can be seen in this edit. talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
These articles should be kept because these buildings are part of the Pittsboro Indiana history. The coverage in Pittsboro History isn't enough. In these articles It tells about the history of the buildings. Sedna10387 (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis contribs 17:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Becki Kregoski
Only minor roles/stand-in's in a number of shows. Fails ]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Vanderanese language
Failed prod, but the article most certainly needs to go. It has no references and no evidence to assert notability. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was No Consensus - the input in this discussion is split. The article's supporters are invited to strengthen its text, while those who favor deletion are welcome to revisit this subject later in the year if the article has seen no substantial improvements. talk) 00:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
Jackson Davis
AfDs for this article:
Only known for appearing in ]Keep. This was already nominated for deletion once before and kept. If we're doing another nomination, I ask on what basis are we departing from the prior consensus? Jackson Davis was one of the primary cast members on Longlygirl15, and then the lead character of the Lg15: The Resistance spinoff. I agree that most webseries "stars" do not merit their own article because most series are obscure, but the primary cast members of lonelygirl15 are just as noteworthy as the actors on cable TV shows, e.g., even the minor actors on WP:ENT alone, he has a large female following online, just look at the comments to any of the 100s of videos he appears in online, especially when shirtless. On basic notability criteria, he has been covered by secondary source material such as the newspapers cited in the article. --Milowent (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
Keep. I see no new reason for this to be nominated for deletion again, after the concussion of the first was to keep. Jackson Davis played a big part in the Lonelygirl15 series which for a while was thought to be real and this alone is notable enough to keep. KindredPhantom (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far the main arguments I see against deleting it are that 1: It was already kept, and 2: That this person is part of a famous show, and therefore should be kept. If he's that huge of a part of the show, I think there should be more news articles if that is the case. It could be that, given time, that will happen, but right now it doesn't look like it. I'm still looking around for articles, but since most of them are focused on the show, and not on the person, it seems to me that the correct thing to do is to redirect it to the show, and merge any of the important information into that article. And before anyone brings it up, the renomination doesn't bother me because it's been over a year, and the arguments for keep were terrible to begin with. In the intervening 17 months, if there has not been more coverage then a few article about the show, then I think he's not notable, and should only be considered in connection with the main topic. Sodam Yat (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is entirely appropriate to renominate this article for deletion, the closing administrator in the previous AfD felt it necessary to comment that the arguments to keep the article were "thin on policy". That's another way of saying that those who wanted it kept couldn't give a good reason for it. Once again, nobody has given a reason why this person is vote. I believe the only reason the last AfD survived was because while those arguing to keep weren't giving a legimitate reason to delete, nobody was giving a legitimate reason to delete either. -- Atamachat 00:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was userfy to User:MPeterHenry/Language of logic. There is consensus here that the article with its current scope and structure is not appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, but also some agreement that it has value and promise. Skomorokh 16:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Language of logic
Declined PROD. Very thin essay that deals with material already very well covered at Logic, Formal semantics, and especially First-order logic. The title also promises much more than it gives, in that the entry only makes a small point about first order logic, and not about logic and language in general. Redundant and unnecessary entry. Hairhorn (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Katherine Pawlak
Fails ]
|
The result was delete. ]Cobus Potgieter
Fails ]
|
Aw come on! Smgafrica is a sponsor of Cobus! see? http://www.cobuspotgieter.com/faq/show/34/ just let the guy have his page geez! SMG Africa Sponsors this drummer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.14.118 (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yep look at the link given at the end of the discussion - thus passing ]Scott DoeAfDs for this article:
Relist per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 30. Originally nominated for deletion by User:Vintagekits, who stated : Original reason for PROD removed. The footballer has never played in a fully-professional match. Fails WP:ATHLETE and the sources provided from the Dorset Echo are purely trivial. I barely consider the 3rd level of English football notable - this guy played in the 6th! Hiding T 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Hiding T 21:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Rory Auskerry
Autobiography of a radio journalist/presenter. The article does not indicate notability: the only reference is his own web-page, and Google shows mostly Myspace, Linkedin, Twitter, blogs and the sort of listings that any presenter would get - none of the sort of independent comment that would indicate notability, certainly nothing like the standard of ]
|
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 01:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] El Shaddai (movement)
Notability asserted but not established by references. Almost completely unreferenced. Contains some mixture of excessively promotional material with blp-dubious "criticism", which is potentially defamatory accusations that the leaders of the group are scam artists. If an article about this topic were to be on Wikipedia, it would have to be restarted almost from scratch. ⟳ausa کui× 21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. ]
|
The result was keep. JForget 00:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Emily Benn
STRONG DELETE Fails all wiki criteria for includes. No notability. Promotional page. Editing done by SPA --WikiKing2012 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE User:WikiKing2012 has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:BirminghamAV. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BirminghamAV/Archive for details. I am strinking the second !vote. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. ]Georgia Gould (Labour Party Member)
Strong Delete The controversy incident is not notable under wiki. Apart from that the article is self-promotional and there are no notable achievement to warrant such a page. Wiki an encyclopedia and georgia gould has not achieved any other significance. Thousands of students pass through Oxford colleges each year - this is no reason for inclusion. Neither is working for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. As the subject has failed to demonstate notable grounds for continued inclusion - the debate should be opened as to wtheter to keep the page.--WikiKing2012 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool - didn't know about that!--WikiKing2012 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] NOTE User:WikiKing2012 has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of User:BirminghamAV. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BirminghamAV/Archive for details. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy delete, ]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kimmi Cupcakes
Fails on WP:ENTERTAINER. PROD refused by creator. No reliable source present. Hitro talk 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was speedy deleted by ]ONE Lowell World Cup
Non-notable soccer competition. Appears anyone can enter to represent their country. Motivation behind the article appears to be to gain more exposure for a non-profit organisation. The article contains significant text copied directly from the competitions website and is horribly unclear about what it's all about. noq (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Anyone requesting a userfication should contact me on my talk page. Thanks! JForget 00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Organic Feudalism during the Civil War
This article appears to be about some little-known political movement during the civil war. Cites no sources. This article may be too complex for Wikipedia. Area968 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of self-inculpators
List with four entries. Criteria for inclusion are impossibly broad: "prominent individuals who have inadvertently inculpated themselves by producing, and failing to adequately conceal or to destroy, written or otherwise-recorded evidence that has subsequently implicated them in faults or crimes." This is a very big category of people; almost anyone (prominent) who fails to cover their own tracks in a crime or misdeed can fall in here. The broader the criteria are, the less interesting the list is. Hairhorn (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Tom Sawyer, Avenger
Completing unfinished nom for IP because NOBODY EVER REALIZES WHEN AFD DISCUSSIONS ARE REDLINKED ANYMORE! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Koch Entertainment discography
Overlong, under-researched discography, no sources, no hope of being complete. See Sony BMG discography for similar problems. Borderline hoax as many of the listed labels aren't even distributed by Koch. The list is also half assed as it only shows rap artists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 23:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Aluminum Overcast
Not a aircraft of particular note (referring to Wikipedia:Notability_(aircraft)#Individual_aircraft) Aircraft use by owning organization may be notable but not airframe as such GraemeLeggett (talk)
|
The result was delete. There's consensus here that the article as it stands is untenable, and those favouring retention have not shown that the subject of the article is a discrete encyclopaedic topic nor that it is in itself notable. Should the article be needed for userspace development or transwiki'ing, please feel free to request temporary restoration at ]Take it one step at a time
Wikipedia isn't an advice column for the likes of "Look before you leap" or "No use crying over spilt milk". This is probably not fodder for an encyclopedic article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Reece Wooldridge
The Article does not present any argument for the subject's notability. Article was created by an IP, was never edited, and does not cite any sources. All in all it looks like a promotional article for a sales person Wefa (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. ]Fab Four of Indian cricket
Pointless article, totally POV, All original research Abeer.ag (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV, and anyway there is nothing here which cannot be included in one of the individual player articles. Note also the one reference on the page, which is actually an article about them, er, not being so fab after all. Nice irony that the two items in the "other quartets" section are more commonly grouped than these, though. EJBH (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. Snow, as hoax DGG (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Raja Saadat Khan
This article is a hoax. No reference exists for a person under this name who has won the Victoria Cross. All recipients of the Victoria Cross are listed in the Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Are there any Victoria Cross experts out there? Woody (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. Snow, as hoax DGG (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yar Mohammad Khan
This article is a hoax. No reference exists for a person under this name who has won the Victoria Cross. All recipients of the Victoria Cross are listed in the Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Are there any Victoria Cross experts out there? Woody (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was keep. Consensus seems to suggest that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sunnybrook Park
This article may talk about a big park, but it doesn't show importance about the topic. ]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] A Dog Named Angel
Original research Oscarthecat (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. A confused discussion with no clear outcome as to the reliability of the references or the etymology. Ultimately, being self-published is not reason enough to dismiss the Fekete source, and thus the notability of the topic. Skomorokh 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
Biflation
patent nonsense. Article claims that biflation is simultaneous inflation and deflation. Inflation and deflation are both concepts which apply to the whole economy. The economy cannot inflate and deflate at the same time. Article says that some parts of the economy inflate while others deflate. This is a misuse of the terms "inflation" and "deflation". Some random refs do not add to the understanding. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Biofascism
POV, seems like an attempt to do "guilt by association" and possibly POV pushing by defining a blanket term, especially since the editor that created the article simultaneously broadened the definition of biologism in that article. An oline search indicates that "biofascism" has been used as a derogatory term, but under this article's definition it's more of a neologism. References are not up to RS standard for an issue such as this. (BTW, the article was a PROD supportedx2 before it was deprodded. Tomas e (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was keep. JForget 23:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Carol Gould
This whole page looks like a dressed up resume. It's full of unverified value statements which may well have been written by the subject, or the subject's mother! — Preceding unsigned comment added by English roG (talk • contribs) 2009/07/29 22:24:21
— English roG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] David Logan (playwright)
Non-notable spam. This article was started and maintained by sockpuppets from Brisbane (where David Logan hails), suggesting incredibly bad faith COI. The addition of David Logan references to all mention of Dracula in wikipedia suggests a concerted spamming attempt. Best have all of it taken off wikipedia. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Alerox75 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC) — Alerox75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There seems to be a very serious situation developing here where a number of editors are seriously maligning Dr. Logan with gross inaccuracies. A search of the following catalogues produces these results on Dr. Logan's publications: State Library of Queensland where he is listed as a significant writer for Queensland. There are 10 works listed: Dr. Logan's works are listed clearly at the National Library of Australia. Libraries Australia website: http://www.librariesaustralia.nla.gov.au Also list Dr. Logan's works as does WorldCat. We're All In This Together http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=isbn%3A9780980456349 All other publications are listed. [[User talk: davidcs73, 09:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcs73 (talk • contribs) — Davidcs73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. It would seem there is a very serious miscarriage of justice happening here to libel and malign Dr. Logan. I would suggest it stops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcs73 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC) — Davidcs73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It would seem that both Davidcs and Alerox, both users created only to talk about this topic, have magically made a mistake about which David Logan we are talking about. If you're sockpuppets, which I think you are, take a good look at yourself, David. Wikipedia is global. People here are from all over the world. Is this debate the kind of publicity you want? Remember that this discussion is preserved forever.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User talk: Alexey-Chernykh 08:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.135.223 (talk) [reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Dracula's ReturnAfDs for this article:
Spam. David Logan's page is also up for deletion as non-notable spam work of sockpuppets. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Father of the Elder Princess of Saxony
Original research. Oscarthecat (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. As far as I can tell, no evidence was advanced during this discussion to establish the subject's notability. Thus, I see that consensus is to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Khatri Gotras and clans
List has no point in existing... Category:Khatri clans is enough. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Michelle Lukes
Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers notability test. Oscarthecat (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mirror Image Art
Original research / neologism. Furthermore, creator is claiming copyright on associated pictures he's uploaded on this subject. Oscarthecat (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Naomi (Two and a Half Men)
no indication of why this character needs an article if this character was a guest star, there is no need for this artical. Pedro thy master (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Those editors in favour of keeping the article failed to show that the topic meets any notability guidelines, or to argue that the notability issue was mitigated by other factors. Skomorokh 16:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Rhisiart Tal-e-botAfDs for this article:
This article managed to slip through the net last time (it was deleted from the French and other Wikipedias), but I'm not sure it should have been allowed to stay here. The article is a ]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sony BMG discography
Sony BMG (2004-2008) was one of the big four music companies globally, with dozens of record label operations in the US and UK, and with local repertoire right across the globe. The company "Sony BMG", through its many label groups and record labels, released 1/4 of the world's music in its existence. I don't see how this page can meaningfully capture the ginormous scope that is Sony BMG. Album pages are classified under their respective labels and label categories. This page also starts in the 80s when it wasn't until 2004 that the company was formed as "Sony BMG", and so I automatically removed the few listings under the 80s and 90s. Moreover 90% of the random listings appear to have no connection to the Sony or BMG labels, in fact, other unrelated companies are indicated in brackets. Therefore this page is completely bogus and is an act of deception/vandalism. Imperatore (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. ]Wayne Marshall (disambiguation)
Nominate for deletion Unnecessary page as there is already a hatnote to Wayne Marshall (DJ) at the primary page (Wayne Marshall. Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see you've now moved the disambiguation page to the primary page, without any discussion or consultation - that isn't recommended. If you go to Wayne Marshall and then What links here, you'll see that a list of articles which are probably pointing to the wrong target now; please correct this as you should do after moving a page and initiate a discussion on conductor's page and link to it on DJ's page to the issue of comparative notability as DJ has mentions in only 2 other articles, evidence will need to be put forward. Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Withdraw nomination while mess is sorted at the two pages. Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Amefurashi
Long-term uncited. I am not sure this creature even exists, as a google search seems biased toward an unrelated work with a similar name. Mintrick (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was NO CONSENSUS. After analyzing the agruments of both sides, I think there is no consensus to keep or delete this article. AdjustShift (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is blatant, ridiculous POV propaganda and an unneeded fork/original research. Its just different instances of violence caused by Communism and put it under the umbrella of "genocide"; furthermore it is extreme POV to associate actions of individual regimes with communism as a whole. The page was created as soapboxing by a user whose sole edits so far are POV pushing on Communism. Every system of government is responsible for many deaths throughout history, I don't see why Communism must be singled out. Furthermore, the deaths that occurred under communism was not genocide. Triplestop x3 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note from nominator, I apologize for having gotten carried away on this. I still think this page should go, but I will be removing this from my watch list. Cheers, Triplestop x3 01:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] To summarize
Note to closing admin Given the nature of the subject, there is going to be clear bias in the votes. I ask that this be taken into account. Triplestop x3 03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note to closing admin - why should the nominator be allowed to put a very POV, biased, pronouncement at the top of the page (which makes sure that everyone will read it, as opposed to sifting through the individual comments and votes) asserting that somehow the voting is "biased" (which obviously, according to Triplestop, means that it hasn't gone according to her/his wishes). This is an attempt at manipulating the outcome with a grievous disregard of the actual votes. It borders on disruptive editing. talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
Another note The creator of this page is a banned user, a serial crosswiki vandal. As this page was clearly an attempt to troll, perhaps G5 could apply here. Triplestop x3 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break
No, I am trying to invite further discussion on whether or not this page violates Wikipedia's policies. Did is say "PLEASE VOTE DELETE ON THIS?" No. Triplestop x3 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Random heading to split the page for easier editing
Yet one more random split
Another pointless splitting
Delete Synthesis at its finest. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
Delete I don't think a rename would word - what would an article, "Genocide in communist regimes" contain, aside from a list of links to articles about specific such genocides? As the sources produced thus far only discuss connections between these events briefly or in passing, anything other than a mere list of links to otherwise unrelated articles would be either very short, or an OR synthesis. The problem with "Communist genocide" is that it implies that there is a notable academic theory of communist genocide; if "Genocide in communist countries" were to have any content, it would have to make the same claim, and this is precisely the claim that is disputed.VoluntarySlave (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well known concept,lot of references Shyamsunder (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Communist leader Grigory Zinoviev seemed to be advocating genocide when he declared in mid-September of 1918:
I'd say this is not a "mistake in management" Smallbones (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Baxter Park
|
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Glasgow University F.C.
Fails ]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Criticism of Human Rights WatchAfDs for this article:
An unnecessary WP:UNDUE. Human Rights Watch is a generally well-regarded NGO that criticizes what it perceives as human rights abuses in various countries. Not surprisingly, some of these countries (and their supporters are not happy about this, and retaliate by questioning HRW's impartiality. The article has allegations of anti-American bias, anti-Israel bias, and anti-Eritrea bias (WTF?) I see no evidence that these criticisms represent a mainstream or consensus view. Those few that are genuinely notable could easily be included in a paragraph or two in the main article. Creating a separate article consisting of nothing but criticism — one that is nearly as long as the main article — is a classic example of undue weight. *** Crotalus *** 16:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
I don't have a strong opinion on whether the article is possible in principle. Criticism of HRW may be a notable topic, but that is different from some editors declaring it to be notable because they want the article, regardless of what documentable, encyclopedic criticism is actually referencable. The article as it stood was a dumping ground for someone who just wanted to attack HRW. I have now read every reference that was used in the article at the time of this nomination. If you haven't checked the sources as I have, please don't presume to know what was valid or complain about my removals. The article used blogs as sources of fact, it flat out lied about what sources said, it represented an undergraduate opinion piece as the reporting of the publisher, it gave refs that didn't exist, and so on. The section on Eritrea referred to nothing but Eritrea's disagreement with HRW about one HRW report on Eritrea. If that's a basis for inclusion, the article will be an endless, mammoth dumping ground of governments bashing HRW reports about just those specific governments. The examples need to be systemic criticism, and given the politicized, POV-filled nature of the topic, the sourcing needs to be rigorous. I started a list of guiding principles for this article on the Talk page, please contribute to it if you wish. talk) 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
I've been thinking more about the idea of a POV fork. What would people think if I created an article called "Praise for Human Rights Watch" and filled it with all the great compliments people have given HRW? Taking criticism (or praise) out of the main article takes it out of context. talk) 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was Speedy keep. Triplestop x3 17:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
David Eppstein
Does not meet Wiki criteria for any notability. Does not meet wiki criteria for academics either. Seems the guy is a wannabe —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirminghamAV (talk • contribs)
Eppstein needs his eyes testing. There are two accounts arguing for the keep but there is also independent wiki users who have no connection to the subject - check the history page as well as the discusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirminghamAV (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The author David Eppstein has a history of harassing article and can be logged back to 2008. He is currently engaged in a debate on the Matthew Tye page and has harranged the discussion with weak arguments. As per the wiki guidelines the admins will judge the page on its content rather than the number of objections mr eppstein has made. Note well that it is not the number of accounts that support a page - one is suffiencent but its merit.--BirminghamAV (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] In addition this page should be removed as it violtes the wiki terms and condition with the user engaged in agressive and malicious activity on the site, rather than furthering wikis good article policy
|
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wall Pong
Local non-notable game ]
|
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. ]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Binu Jayawardena
Non-notable per WP:ACTOR: student who won a medal for top marks at his secondary school, started a non-notable business and appeared once on a television program Per Ardua (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. The keep votes did not present a strong argument of notability compared to the deletes. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Luci Thai
There is no indication the subject of this article meets the WP:Pornbio criteria for notability (a single award nomination is insufficient to achieve notability under those standards), nor do there seem to be any other indications of notability demonstrated within the article. The article is also very poorly sourced, in that virtually none of its contents are sourced; the only info that is sourced is her place of birth, and her nomination for that single award - and in the latter case, the link is dead. Furthermore, this article is distinctly vulgar and unencyclopedic in tone, littered with references to "double penetration," "double anal," "double vaginal," as well as text alluding to the relative size of the penises of the various men she's appeared with. And of course, none of this is sourced. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Harald Dahl
Contested prod. No claim to notability other than being father of author Roald Dahl. References appear to prove Roald's notability but not necessarily his fathers'. RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] David Bowker
No evidence of notability Deb (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Badflower (talk) 13:39 8 August, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Icons of American culture
Looks like a pretty blatant example of original research to me, and some of the parts of it look unsalvageably POV ("Humvee: the coolest military vehicle ever."???). I doubt whether this could be turned into an encyclopedic articole, at least in its current format; the subject may be such that an encyclopedic subject could be written, but this ain't it. Grutness...wha? 10:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was keep. getting more like a ]Brooke Greenberg
Delete. See ]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Diego Orduña
This player fails both WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Recreate if & when he meets either of these guidelines in the future. This article is a contested PROD; no rationale was given by article's author for the removal of the template. GiantSnowman 10:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Eric Lichaj
PROD was removed for no reason. Hasn't made a professional appearance yet. "He looks to be a part of Villa's plan for the future." is ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Dos_Santos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Coquelin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Amos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Spearing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Darby I don't see a Marked for Deletion for these players. That's completely hypocritical. (talk) 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Um, no. Except Ben Amos, NONE of those players have made a professional appearance according to their Wiki page. Notice the 0 appearances for their club. LukeAtmiaz (talk) 9 August 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Felony (album)
|
The result was delete. Consensus here suggests that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. That several sources simply mention the topic is not usually enough to establish notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] @icon sushiAfDs for this article:
--Hm2k (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 00:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Black holes in fiction
The article's only content is a list of trivia and pop culture references. Auspex1729 (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to ]
|
The result was speedy delete ]A Classroom Detective Story
Non-notable film. Fails ]
|
The result was keep. No consensus for deletion; editorial decisions should be discussed on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of organizations in the Honorverse
non-notable, unsourced heap of plot from an alternate universe; from the same franchise authors as Fall of Man"' is not exactly original. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Tour de Force (expression)
The dictionary definition is already covered at Tour de Force and I don't see any possibility of expanding this article beyond a dictionary definition ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was procedural close as keep. During the pendency of this discussion, the page was merged into Redirects for Discussion, not Articles for Deletion, would have jurisdiction over whether it belongs or not, since all the AfD notice does now is prevent the redirect from operating. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. This is a close call, and I've taken quite a bit of time to thoroughly evaluate the discussion. The majority of the editors who participated in this discussion agreed that the topic is not suitable for inclusion as its own article. In the end, there seems to be a consensus to delete; a weak consensus, I grant, but a consensus nonetheless. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep per ]Libertarianism (metaphysics)
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Stealth Blimp
Last week I filed an AFD for the article Atlas Carver, one of two articles I deemed suspicious during a routine pass through our black project pages. This is the other article I deemed suspicious; it seems to be composed almost entirely of eye witness citing, with no real background or development information present for an NPOV take on project. I am of the mind that this whole article may be in open violation of WP:CRYSTAL, hence the afd nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Discussion regarding potential editoral decisions should continue elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was nomination withdrawn to allow further discussion of relevant standards. Closing this myself despite being the nom. due to the low level of participation. JJL (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Stephan Berwick
Non-notable martial artist; minor work in film, author of some IKF and BB articles and a couple of general Tai Chi books (e.g. the 48 page "Tai Chi for kids"). Page orphaned apart from a dab for the surname, and only evidence of being noted given is one article in JAMA. He has achieved some minor additional attention [67] per ]
|
The result was Speedy delete a7, band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kidofdoom
Non-notable band; requested speedy; original poster removed csd mhking (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 00:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Murray D. Martin
The latest in a series of CEO listings entries. Notable only for being a CEO, therefore not notable enough for a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete all. Every last bit of this crap speedied by myself and various other admins as blatant hoaxes. Author blocked by Friday as a vandal-only account. 96 22:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
United states presidential election in Kentucky 1960
No references, and percentage's don't add up. And the author has changed the percentages a few times. --Abc518 (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding near identical pages from same editor:
Both were up for speedy as misnomer redirects... but I created the redirects to get rid of the articles, so they should have been reverted rather than speedied. Hairhorn (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Consensus here indicates that the topic is sufficiently notable to justify inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Malta–Portugal relations
simply having embassies or being members of the EU does not grant automatic notability. I've checked the first 70 results of this gnews search and almost all is multilateral. the fact they played a football match last year does not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wood Harp
"Production errors". "Low budget, low-quality production and inexperienced acting". "One of Thomas Rewick's lesser films." So what makes you think it is notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Merge/Redirect (non admin close) talk) 17:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Destination matters
Insufficient evidence of notability for inclusion. Only references appear to be Amazon.com and the production's own site. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 01:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Shodanproductions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:35, August 3, 2009 (UTC).
— Blt8472 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kindred spirit
DELETE This is a dictionary definition through and through, and always will be. JBsupreme (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nottingham Debating Union
Article prodded in April because "Non notable student society, fails ]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @925 · 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Shane O'Connor (soccer)
Procedural listing after prod removed. Fails ]
|
The result was merge to WTPT. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Joseph Pipa
Short, unsourced stub, giving no indication of meeting find}} reveals no indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources", just the occasional citation, passing mention or quotation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Timen cruz
Long article which implies notability, but few g-hits. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ayham Barghuthi
There are claims of reliable sources , or the content does not contain any info about the subject. Further google searches show virtually no information about subject (all content scraped from this article), no results for subject in google news. Google also offers very little about the company, IAM.
talk) 14:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
There are currently 3 people working on this article, it seems no one looks at the talk or discussion pages of the articles anymore these days. Google gives results on IAM INC not IAM. You also get more information by searchig officialiam. Your name is Omar so I am safe to assume you speak arabic, unless you are from a non arab speaking muslim country. THe point of this is that if you search in arabic you are better off with the results. I am wih you on that some sources are unlclear or don't point directly to the point mentioned, yet I am working with the guys on fixing this as I have found better and more reliable sources and I am in touch with the person doing the re-write yet I refused to let them publish it due to minor inaccurcies such as networth which they state as 46-7 which is incorrect as this is the worth of the corporation not the person. I hereby request the page is removed from deletion, given a deadline of 1 month for readjustment and then re-evaluated. — 132.205.243.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I do not agree with deleting this as I am the one who originally wrote the article. If you examine the links properly it is well clear that because the links are old, they seem to have been deleted by the host. I think a site that gives older versions of the webpage could be useful in showing that the information was indeed there. If it was a hoax as one claims, I would have made sure the links are always up to par no. I also do not know what template changes and all the things you cliam are. As for the numbers, the address is in Canada hence it is a Canadian company. A simple and proper search could tell you that. I smarter move would be going to the "company registrar of quebec" and searching the company. If the address is a Canadian address and a company has US numbers for US clients, they are possibly virtual numbers which direct the call to the HQ. Try calling one. I have no idea on the results of your white pages. I have never seen a corporate site write the name of its staff on its website, that would be a bit odd I guess. Yet IAM Inc and its founder are pretty well known here and in Jordan. There are a few videos I have found that tell a lot yet I never knew if they are a source that can be link as I am very new to wikipedia, this was indeed my first article. I agree with the person with no signature, I would remove this from deletion and give me time to re-locate links and other sources that would enhance on this article. Otherwise I would request a speedy deletion until I do it myself and repost it as a new article. Mindtofind (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC). — Mindtofind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strong Delete the company has a red link, so the company isn't notable. The article is missing cites, and the cites it does have don't seem to match with the article. The article can always be recreated when notability and sources are provided. TheWeakWilled 02:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Custody battle for Anna Mae He. JForget 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedily deleted (G11) by Nihiltres. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. be kind to newcomers 18:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
Rodrigo Pérez de Ovando, 1st Count of Ciudad Rodrigo
I am questioning the notability of this article, I would like some input.. SparksBoy (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Taylor Kalupa
contested prod, has future potential of notability but seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER in it's current state. Additionally, appears to be a promotional semi-spam article by the original creator. Falcon8765 (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was a clear consensus for delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yardsaledb
nn website Amocool (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Advanced Data & Network SolutionsAfDs for this article:
Fails WP:ORG. Lack of significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject, prod was declined by IP author. RayTalk 20:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Simon Moores
This article has remained mostly autobiographical and as such seems to me to be a candidate for deletion. I am open to correction from other editors but it seems the correct action to take. Lord Matt (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. The keep votes did not address the notability concerns. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wild About It (Natalie Imbruglia song)
contested prod removed without significant improvement. Fails WP:NSONGS, lacks references to reliable 3rd party sources ( web forums are not reliable souces, Twitter is a primary source). This may be notable one day but not today, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball RadioFan (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] GetPlus Transfer Manager
no independent sources of discussion in the first two pages of google hits. Company that publishes the software has no article. See brief background discussion at User_talk:Tnxman307#let.27s_delete_GetPlus_Transfer_Manager Petershank (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|