Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 31
< October 30 | November 1 > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mubabinge Bilolo[edit]
- Mubabinge Bilolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article appears to be a non-notable vanity article, possibly created/maintained by the article's subject. The article does not assert that:
- 1) the subject "is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources."
- 2) the subject "is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field."
- 3) the subject's "collective body of work is significant and well-known."
- 4) the subject "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them."
- 5) the subject "is the originator of an idea or concept that is significant and important within its area."
Further, none of the publications are of general interest or are well-known, and many appear to be published by or in conjunction with the very institution the subject works for, namely the "African Institute for Future Sciences – INADEP"
Few (none?) of the "sources" and external links are independent of the subject. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom.--Crusio 10:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -- Dougie WII 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, also: fails WP:PROF as not being a full professor, and not having published any textbooks in the English language. This is en.wikipedia.org. Bearian'sBooties 19:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No indication this person passes WP:PROF. Doctorfluffy 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article asserts that:
- 1) the subject "is regarded as a significant expert in his area of ancient egyptian philosophy and theology, of african religion and philosophy" by independent sources". The subject "is regarded as the best and the top one in the area of ancient egyptian philosophy"
- 2) the subject "is working for African Institute for Future Sciences as the chairman of Centre of Egyptology"
- 4) the subject "is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the field of philosophy, egyptology and african culture. cf. Discussions in Egyptology, Special Number 2 or Centre d'Estudis Africans Barcelona"
- 5) the subject's "collective body of work is significant and well-known."
- 6) the subject "is the originator of an idea or concept about ancient egyptian cosmo-theology, african philosophy and african culture that is significant and important within its area."
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Currently fails WP:NOT. No prejudice against creating a more encyclopedic article, a la List of bus routes in Manhattan. Please contact me if you require the deleted content. --Fang Aili talk 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Port Authority of Allegheny County bus routes[edit]
- List of Port Authority of Allegheny County bus routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
A list of bus routes. This must fail multiple parts of WP:NOT. Another article of where I"m not sure how to even start listing the problems with it. Ridernyc 23:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If anyone's catching a bus in PAAC Bus in Pittsburgh, you can do it without consulting Wikipedia. Try www.portauthority.org Mandsford 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Blame me. I set up this page The page was originally created to shorten up the old Port Authority page. Some had felt it needed to stay, so rather then delete it, I moved it to its own page. At the time, the Port Authority's web page wasn't as user friendly as it is today. Incidentally, it has been somewhat useful as of late as the Port Authority has dropped and rearranged several bus routes and is considering dropping more. Anyway, I don't think it fails WP:NOT so that's why it gets the "Weak Keep" vote, but I can definitely agree that the article could be improved to add more substance. ClarkBHM 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, by the way, there was a WikiProject out there working on other bus routes such as this one. See Wikipedia:WikiProject buses and Wikipedia:WikiProject buses/Bus route list guide. I acknowledge that the group appears to be inactive now, but in context, there were obviously several Wikipedians who did not think that listing bus routes violated WP:NOT. ClarkBHM 02:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no reason for bus schedules to be on Wikipedia when they are available from their respective transportation authority websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougie WII (talk • contribs) 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it is nothing but a route guide. An external link from the Port Authority's web site would be more than sufficient to cover this material. -- Whpq 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but cleanup. Remove timetables and add description of the administration and history of the system. See List of bus routes in Manhattan for a good example. --Polaron | Talk 16:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Once again WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is being interpreted as "no lists allowed" which is not true. Lists are explicitly allowed per WP:NOT and specifically WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Per Poloaron, we don't need the timetables and the article should focus more on the the administration and history. --Oakshade 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the basic idea of a list-type article is to give a list of notable topics. Is a bus route notable? Surely not: this is the same as a radio station, for which WP:NOT says "For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules...". Nyttend 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory. RobJ1981 01:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if history is added. It doesn't necessarily need to be kept up to date when the point is to describe how they evolved from streetcar lines. --NE2 23:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and the augmentation above. SorryGuy 07:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete--JForget 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The power of color[edit]
- The power of color (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Article is unencyclopedic, unreferenced and original research —Salmar (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2007 (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}} . |
The article is a page representing the well know idea of the power of color which books have been written on. Seeing no page on wikipeidea with it i felt obliged to write it i will continue to edit and it will continue to grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonut82 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC) — Jonut82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. The nom has it right - no referencing, it's orig research, and on top of that, it doesn't give much context. I hate to sound disparaging, but it's also not really well written - it sort of rings of a lot of new age philosophy (which there can be more theories than adherents, in my observation), and seemingly borrows from other articles (which brings us back to OR again). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete not a title anyone will put in the search of wikip, plus all the content is already at colour therapy-the correct name for this. (or could be added to there).Merkinsmum 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- do not delete colour tharapy has some of the ideas but not all and if this guy is going to keep working on it and add new ideas then what is the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamty (talk • contribs) — Shamty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Do Not DeleteThe author is presenting ideas on a subject that differs from color therapy in a way that deserves a completely separate article and i am sure it will not be this small in a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerr (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC) — Soccerr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Do Delete A surprisingly colorless article that hints at covering a wide range of things... auras, effect of color on personality, your personal color, etc.... and has a web source entitled "Red may increase blood pressure" Mandsford 01:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete nonsense, and created by Jonut82 (talk · contribs), who is a duplicate account of Jonut80 (talk · contribs) who has a long list of nonsense articles that were also deleted. JuJube 01:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment note the WP:SPAs. Some of this content could go in aura, and the 'scientific' claims are already in 'colour therapy'. Ths is mainly one person's Original Research/synthesis.Merkinsmum 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A puff-piece of New Age thought without sources or facts. humblefool® 04:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete. why are you guys so enraged about this article its not like its stopping you from putting up articles and even thou there is very little information at this time dosent mean we should delete the information it has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.75.241.206 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to think we're enraged, go ahead and think this. Trust me, though, we're not. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the nomination has it spot on. Also, is it just me that thinks the various 'Do Not Delete' comments are coming from the same single source?Alberon 09:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -- Dougie WII 13:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research -- Whpq 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge and redirect to Honorverse. --Fang Aili talk 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deneb Accords[edit]
- Deneb Accords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This fictional version of the Geneva Accords is unsourced, non-notable. Prod tag was removed by 132.205.99.122 who claims "major plot element in the fictional body, should be merged somewhere" Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge. I am quite familiar with the series, and it is not a major element of it. Clarityfiend 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Merge into Honorverse: There's not only an obvious parent article with notability established, there's even a merge proposal already in place. —Quasirandom 00:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Quasi Mandsford 01:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge not notable plot element of the Honorverse where it should be put. And I'm a big Honor fan! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the Honorverse. Not enough material to stand on its own but also nothing suggesting it is not referencing actual content of the novels. Dimadick 07:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 05:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge and redirect to Honorverse. --Fang Aili talk 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cherwell Convention[edit]
- Cherwell Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This fictional treaty is unsourced, non-notable. Prod tag was removed by 132.205.99.122 who claims "major plot element in the fictional body, should be merged somewhere". Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge not a major plot element of the Honorverse Ealdgyth | Talk 03:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the Honorverse. Not enough material to stand on its own but also nothing suggesting it is not referencing actual content of the novels. Dimadick 07:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:FICT. Secondary sources to establish notability do not exist. Doctorfluffy 04:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Honorverse. "Cherwell Convention" is not notable of itself. Axl 10:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep
N987SA[edit]
- Was speedy-delete-tagged {{db-nocontext}}, but seems to be fairly substantial and noteworthy, if it is true. Anthony Appleyard 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Who owned drug plane that crashed in Mexico McClatchy. Other sources: [1], [2], [3]--victor falk 00:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. DS 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Williams (journalist)[edit]
Apparent hoax. See Mike Evans (journalist). Stifle (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by hoax do you mean she doesn't exist? I found this article on her. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't know if this is a hoax. I do know that I am unable to find any reliable sources. A search for "Mary Williams" combined with CBS3 and then with KYW doesn't turn up any results that seem to match the journalist in question. A look at the current anchor lineup at the CBS3 bios does not list her as an anchor although she may have left the position between the time this article was posted (June 2007) and now. -- Whpq 16:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - even though it looks good, it's definitely a hoax. Too bad this user wastes his/her talent creating hoaxes. Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Evans (journalist) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carly Rhodes. Jauerback 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I wonder if this guy is a journalism student making fake pages about his professors? That's the only thing I can think of...some weird hoaxes...but...nothing verifiable. She's not on the website at the station where she supposedly anchors the major newscast. Smashville 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete — Caknuck 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria Coalition for the Survivors of Torture[edit]
- Victoria Coalition for the Survivors of Torture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Original author claims notability, but has not provided sources requested by editor who removed prod. 13 non-wiki ghits, none of which (including the French and Spanish) show notability. Fabrictramp 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, anyone searching on the internet will find their webpage, and little else. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google news search shows no evidence of notability, and no WP:RS provided in article. JJL 01:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- recommend not deleting VCST -
re: third party coverage. 1) Carleton University's Research resource division for Refugees has asked VCST to organize articles for every issue of INSCAN since about 2005. INSCAN is a bilingual publication from the Research Resource Division for Refugees, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5B6 - The VCST organizes the ResCanNet Bulletin section within INSCAN. This publication is not on the web but is available by purchasing a copy. Carleton University is listed by wikipedia. 2) The VCST is listed by Wiser Earth (WiserEarth is a social networking site for people and organizations with a social purpose - wiser earth can be found through a wikipedia search. http://www.wiserearth.org/organization/view/6d4538bccce35fbec3cc69c3f30092da
- Please take a minute to read through WP:Notability, especially the section entitled "General notability guideline". Merely being listed in a directory does not meet the requirements of WP:Notability, nor does being hired to complete a project for a notable institution.--Fabrictramp 14:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. PeaceNT 08:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gates of Winter[edit]
- Gates of Winter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This is an article on a band that has not yet had an official release, and is not on a label. There are no valid sources given in the article. The article has had overtly promotional content repeatedly deleted by registered Wikipedia editors, only to be replaced by numbered IPs. Therefore: non-notable and spam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable publicity page. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not meet criteria set out in WP:BAND, and no reliable sources found in searching -- Whpq 16:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I also failed to turn up reliable sources through searching. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BAND. Doctorfluffy 06:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete; if you want a copy to work on a merge, request one. --Haemo 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Langano Sector[edit]
- Langano Sector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This fictional galactic sector is known only for its geeks, or its geckoes, depending on which is the vandalism and which is the "true" version. Non-notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn. Why are we doing this one at a time? Nominate all the sectors at once and get it over with. Clarityfiend 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I need to convince the deprodder that if he cares about these articles, he should consolidate them. I don't want to do a mass nomination for fear of a train wreck outcome. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:FICT. Less than 70 ghits from fansites and the like, nothing resembling a reliable secondary source. Doctorfluffy 05:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect All. Merge all the "Administrative divisions of the Galactic Empire" into a listing page just like are done with the Minor Foundation Planets. The articles are all short enough that a mass merge is reasonable. (Would it be against Wiki-etiquette for me to just go ahead and do that while the AfD is still up?) Mdmkolbe 18:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's definitely "geckoes", since Asimov wouldn't have written about "geeks". And I deprodded it because it wasn't a hoax. Aside from that, doesn't much matter to me. DS 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. PeaceNT 08:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth Ulrich[edit]
NN as an unelected local politician, substitute local broadcaster Toddst1 22:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Might justify a page if she wins as she will then be an elected public figure, otherwise Delete. The page will need a bit of rewrite if it is kept.Alberon 10:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' - does not meet WP:BIO unelected politician. -- Whpq 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete as things stand but without prejudice to recreation if she wins the election. At the moment there doesn't seem to be enough to distinguish her from any other candidate for office (of which there are a lot). The radio career doesn't seem significant enough (no coverage in RS's that I can see) to warrant inclusion on those grounds. — iridescent 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The bot scores this story 145 points, far more than other stories that are not being challenged. She easily qualifies whether she wins the general election or not.
Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule Category:[^\]]*politic 50 points
Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule conservative 10 points
Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule democra(t|c) 10 points
Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule democratic\sparty 10 points
Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule election 10 points
Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule politician 25 points
Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule regulation 10 points
Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule republican 10 points
Article Ruth Ulrich matched rule republican\sparty 10 points
Total 145 points
Now note this:Article Dave Begg matched rule alumn 10 points
Article Dave Begg matched rule universit 10 points
Article Dave Begg matched rule category:[^\]]*universit 20 points
Total 40 points
No one is suggesting removing Dave Begg, and he scored 105 points lower than Ulrich.
In addition, there are 42 references to Ulrich on Google, but some are repeats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Hathorn 23:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for sure. 42 Ghits neither proves or disproves the notability of a living person, but it probably leans against her notability. Bearian'sBooties 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:AlexNewArtBot/PoliticsLog This is the bot that gives her 145 points.
There are 50 references to Ulrich on Yahoo search engine in the first 13 blocks. Billy Hathorn 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The bot scores an article to provide some automation in categorizing articles and evaluating whether it looks like a politics related article to be included in the list of new articles for WP:PLT. It doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq 20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. I think Ulrich would be recognized by 300,000 to 500,000 people, or whatever is the average weekly audience of the Griffon radio program. Anyone who listens semi-regularly would know who she it.
Billy Hathorn 20:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nominator is correct, unelected and thus with few if any ongoing sources. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if she were to win the election, the election is for members on the State School Board, not the legislature. We have never considered state school boards as sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 02:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irene Moon[edit]
Fails WP:MUSIC/WP:NOTE. Prod was declined in July with advice to take this to AfD. Malcolmxl5 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as utterly non-notable. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. TGreenburgPR 06:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Google News results show a couple of articles from Lexington Herald Leader behind pay walls. There may be other sources out there and would favour keeping with a tag for more references. -- Whpq 16:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Is it Art? I don't think it's Science... My appologies to Irene and her PowerPoint, but this one BUGS me. Tiptopper 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly non-notable. Doctorfluffy 17:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Anthøny 22:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
White Light Riot[edit]
- White Light Riot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This band does not appear to meet WP:NMG in that it has insufficient releases and its CDs appear to be self-released and do not appear to be on a major label. The article is also written like an advert and full of peacock terms. Finally, there is a lack of third-party sources.
Also standing nominated are the band's CD releases:
Delete all as nominator. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete all - The article issues tag says it all. No external sources, failing WP:V; written in promotional tone. If edited to remove unsourced weasely or peacock terms, it would lose 90% of its content. However, the article does assert (without source) that the record is being distributed by (I guess) a subsidiary of Sony BMG, which in itself doesn't seem to suggest any particular notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. -RiverHockey 13:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - has someone else also put out an album titled "The Dark Is Light Enough"? I keep thinking I've seen this chart at some campus station somewhere, but I must be wrong as I only look at the band names. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The band definitely seems to have a strong local following in the Twin Cities. I've found articles from CityPages[4] and Pulse of the Twin Cities[5], and there's more coverage in paywalled newspapers where they're considered a "high profile established act." They're #5 on the current Roots Music Report radio chart for Minnesota.[6] That's probably not enough by itself, but this radio promotion site[7] claims that Atomism and The Dark Is Light Enough got onto CMJ's Top 200 and Top Adds charts, and while the CMJ site doesn't carry those charts, in this CMJ issue[8] they are on the Add chart on p. 29. Lastly, I found them on a Calgary radio station chart,[9] at #40, not impressive by itself, but an indicator that their appeal is spreading beyond the Twin Cities. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Regional press, charting at a couple non-local stations, and being on CMJ's top adds and Top 200 charts together don't establish notability - if they do, I want my own article too! Evidence of press beyond the regional or website level, which is not just associated with tour promo, plus some hint of lasting notability, all footnoted to reliable sources, ought to do it though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - It also seems these articles were all added by a single-purpose account. Some of her other adds were speedied as blatant advertising. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Stifle (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hamtaros[edit]
I believe that this is a joke article. I found no sources on Hamtaros on a google search. I wasn't sure enought to PROD or Speedy tag though. Martijn Hoekstra 22:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete speedily if possible (whatever the code is for complete nonsense (A7?)) Man It's So Loud In Here 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Cuba or Cubans. Sandstein 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
White Cuban[edit]
This article doesn't seem to have any info that isn't also in the article on Cubans. Also it doesn't spend any time explaining what sets white cubans apart from others. Maybe it could be improved, but as it is it serves no purpose. Man It's So Loud In Here 22:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Cubans. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Cuba. I think this one is limited to the Cubans who are on the island, as opposed to those in Florida and elsewhere. Despite use of colorful flags, doesn't tell us much that we didn't already know... it's no secret that many Cubans are of Spanish descent. Maybe some of this, like the 65% Caucasian population figure, isn't already in the article about Cuba. Mandsford 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Cubans. Don't see any scope for useful improvement as stand-alone article. --AliceJMarkham 01:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Cuba or Cubans. NHRHS2010 talk 20:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A3. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Lawyers in Karachi[edit]
- List of Lawyers in Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - which this article basically purports to be. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nothing to suggest even intent to be notable. --SesameballTalk 22:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. PeaceNT 08:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muftu Muneer Ahmed Akhoon[edit]
- Muftu Muneer Ahmed Akhoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete unsourced bio for a preacher and academic, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF Carlossuarez46 21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I should add that "Mufti Muneer Ahmed Akhoon" returns more hits on google, but still nothing of secondary reference. --SesameballTalk 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Almost certainly a joke/hoax given the amount of extra names mentioned, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and the 5 days on AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. --Crusio 10:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 19:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom et al. as it gives no clear proof of notability per WP:BIO if a preacher, and specifically WP:PROF if an academic. Violates WP:BLP as having insufficient cites. Bearian'sBooties 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G12. Stifle (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swirlnet[edit]
This article is non-encyclopedic and it provides little or no encyclopedic content. It just seems to promote a product. UserDoe 21:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio of [10]. Samuel 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Constantinos Tsakiris[edit]
- Constantinos Tsakiris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article lacks the reliable sources that would show notability for this person. I did my own google search and didn't come up with better sources. Prod removed without comment or improvement by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you google his name in Greek or English? Can you read Greek? Do you think every Greek has articles in English explaining who he is for Wiki? Well luckily this man does! http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=1119293 . Check the article now. Reaper7 21:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google Hits =/= notability. Just because you don't know the topic and can't find references on Google does not mean it should be deleted. If this is deleted we should also delete any and all articles that are about owners of sports teams, Mark Cuban, Tribune Company, George Steinbrenner or heck this entire article List of professional sports team owners. No doubt the article needs cleanup and I've added the tag thusly. Hansonc 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The very strange and strong lone opinion to delete is ridiculous. To base deletion on a Google result, about a man whose name should be typed in Greek anyway is very hardcore and close minded. Actually he does have a forbes entry. He is famous and is important, and I am not surprised that someone has decided to put it up for deletion after a 2 second google search. Talk about out of one's depth. Unfortunately just another example political correctness destroying wiki. What is interesting is I retraced the actions of the wiki editor in question, it was very telling indeed. Google Constantinos Tsakiros and one gets 690 results, Google Κωνσταντίνος Τσακίρης and one gets 51,900.. Reaper7 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sporatic media coverage does not equal notability. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondar sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We have a good deal more than "sporadic" media coverage. Googling in Greek shows he is quite regularly in the news there, including articles in leading newspapers that have covered his role in the football business, and with the forbes factsheet we have enough reliable biographical information to hold an article together. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- if he's a big guy in Greece, why's there no Greek Wikipedia article about him?--A. B. (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep -- 14 news items in last 30 days alone found by the Greek Google News. As "sporadic" goes, that's pretty intense. --A. B. (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per A. B. Also, please be civil with the nominator, none is infallible. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Please note that this would never have come to AfD, if the creator hadn't removed my {prod} without giving any feedback about why she removed it or how he was notable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- well shoot first ask questions later i spose this is a case of. I think what is important is when a article appears about a foreign person, one not from that country or knowing little about it should do a little more research than a 2 second Google search in English before nominating for deletion in the future so we don't all waste our time - even in the very violent situation of a 'prod' being removed with no immediate explanation. Can we remove this deletion tag now? Reaper7 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. henrik•talk 07:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ScienceWorld[edit]
Speedied once (wrongly) as G11, once as A7, restored both times by Michael Hardy, first because of the user who speedy tagged it and second because the first reason should hold for all deletions, if I read his post to my talk correctly (it's a bit muddled on that score, I feel). His championship of this site, laudable though it is, has yet to extend to including either independent references or a claim of notability. As far as I can tell, this site is a wiki with around a thousand articles. Not big, then. According to Michael Hardy, I NEED to take this to AfD. Happy to oblige, althogh I'd probably have simply merged it to the notable MathWorld (same site owner) if I didn't think he'd instantly revert. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This should either be kept or merged into MathWorld for now. In the latter case it should be redirected and tagged with the "R with possibilities" template in anticipation that it will again become a separate article after it further evolves. MathWorld has for years been acclaimed as a highly successful web site---the primary source of information on its topic on the web, unless it's now starting to be challenged by Wikipedia.
- For now, ScienceWorld is notable mainly because it's the same people attempting to do for for science what was so conspicuously thoroughly done for mathematics. Admittedly that may be unclear in the article as it stands, but I think it is a genuine claim of notability, just as a new novel by an author who's won a Nobel Prize in literature may be notable even before its publication because of who its author is.
- The proper way to deal with the "linkfarm" complaint would have been to delete the links other than the one to the main ScienceWorld page, rather than deleting the "External links" section altogether and then deleting the article.
- The nominator, user:JzG, known as "Guy", wrote a comment that said "can you say 'linkfarm', children?", on his edit that entirely deleted the "External links" section. Then he deleted the article altogether. The question of whether this article ought to be deleted had been discussed on several talk pages including this article's own talk page. "Guy" did not answer those comments except by sarcastically calling "children" those who had opposed speedy deletion, before he deleted it again. "Speedy" is clearly inappropriate for cases in which people are already debating whether the article should be kept. Calling those he disagrees with "children" and then deleting the article without comment is abusive and falls far short of reasoned discussion. Michael Hardy 21:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable, was very useful internet encyclopedia in pre-Wikipedia days. Samohyl Jan 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. Just because MathWorld is notable does certainly not mean ScienceWorld is. If ScienceWorld takes off and there are multiple reliable sources establishing notability then it can be looked at again, but at present, there aren't any in the article and I can't find any from a G-search (although I must admit this is hard with such a generic name). The articles currently an A7 candidate. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into MathWorld, only notable within that context. humblefool® 04:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As far as I can tell, nobody has put forward any sensible reason for deleting the ScienceWorld page here at Wikipedia. Weisstein's efforts have been long-standing and well noted in the math community. His non-math pages have been available for almost as long as his MathWorld pages. I was one of the early contributors to his MathWorld page, shortly after he had put it up... ugh, was that 1997? Hard to remember. I got a free t-shirt out of the deal. Anyhow, I've always appreciated Eric's efforts. I stopped contributing to his website when it went commercial. Wikipedia has a much larger role than Eric's pages, and citing Eric's efforts for what they are is the responsible thing to do. Rybu —Preceding comment was added at 06:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sensible reason is that it's not notable. Whilst you seem concerned with Eric getting credit for his creations, this is not what wikipedia is here for and does not answer the concerns raised in the nom. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I explained, the non-math pages have been around essentially as long as the math pages. I've known about them for years and have had the odd occasion where I look things up, especially on his astronomy pages. So it seems to me like your not notable argument is dead in the water. Secondly, this vote may not be well advertised. You really ought to get the people that are most concerned with this page to address your vote. Such as the people that edit astronomy wiki pages. As is it looks like you're getting math people to vote on the removal of a non-math page, which seems not right. Rybu
- And to address your point about Google, how long has the Scienceworld website been up? It looks like it's a pretty new "front" for Eric's pages on physics and astronomy. That, combined with the webpage having the same name as another popular webpage in BC would explain why it doesn't have much Google connectivity yet. Rybu —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll rephrase, how does it satisfy the notability guidlines for web pages? There is no current ascertation of notability in the article. Whether you've heard of them or not, or how long they've been around does not affect the notability of the subject. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say criterion (1) is satisfied. Go to the astronomy page, stars -> stellar types -> brown dwarf, for example. It states what a brown dwarf is and gives multiple examples and references. Rybu 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not notability, there needs to be numerous reliable sources written about ScienceWorld for it to satisfy criteria 1 - such as independant newspapers writing articles about ScienceWorld. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please!! It's not "criteria 1"; it's "criterion 1". "Criteria" is plural! Michael Hardy 22:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not notability, there needs to be numerous reliable sources written about ScienceWorld for it to satisfy criteria 1 - such as independant newspapers writing articles about ScienceWorld. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Go to Google, type in "weisstein world of astronomy", click SEARCH. You find a variety of links from the standard sources like ask.com and goodle, to high school astronomy pages, to math forums to spacetoday.org, various libraries, astronomer blogs, the Internet Guide to Engineering Mathematics and Computing, it's used as a reference for the "OneLook" on-line dictionary, a detailed description at the Charlottesville Astronomical Society webpage for use as a reference, it is referred to at the "Planetary Science" magazine... the list goes on and on. Rybu 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No reason to delete outright, no reason to merge. Why don't we just do Yahoo! Answers → Yahoo!, Google Video → Google, etc? Obviously, argument by analogy extends only so far, but there's no precedent or reason to support an argument that a related or derivative website need necessarily be merged into its parent site. --Cheeser1 06:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have failed to explain how this site is notable. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- God forbid I refute only one of the points in the AfD. I guess I'm not allowed to contribute to the AfD unless I provide enough evidence to settle the matter entirely? Let's just dredge up a few references off the top of my head (ie Google):
- news article by library of the Boulder Labs (ie the NTIA / NIST)
- Cited in a report on the LIGO etc. (ie physicists)
- Coverage in the Washington Times: Mar 13, 2003. The world, atoms to Z particles, all cross-referenced. Joseph Szadkowski. Excerpt available here and verifiable here.
- Need I go on? --Cheeser1 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe if you have good links of this kind, and they're not password-accessible-only, you should put them in the "external links" section of the article. That would be an assertion of notability. Michael Hardy 22:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- God forbid I refute only one of the points in the AfD. I guess I'm not allowed to contribute to the AfD unless I provide enough evidence to settle the matter entirely? Let's just dredge up a few references off the top of my head (ie Google):
- You have failed to explain how this site is notable. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- z:If they are article about the organisation, they are usable references in the reference section whether or not they require a password or payment. There is no prejudice against paid sources if they are the best ones. DGG (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Established well-known website, referenced by many many WP articles. (Just look at "What links here"). It's a good thing to have an article which explains the nature of the site that such citations are going to, just as we do for eg Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or 1911 Britannica. -- Jheald 08:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. If this hasn't been been mentioned in numerous indepentend sources (which I doubt) it would at least be notable by association. This should probably also be mentioned in the artilce on MathWorld, so I'd merge it there for editorial reasons, but because of this reason outrightr deleting it would be silly. —Ruud 15:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable web-site and project, so do not delete. Distinct site from MathWorld so do not merge. Gandalf61 08:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Gandalf61. Stifle (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as frequently referenced source. As for notability, we don't have a policy on that, but for those who think it important, see Cheeser1's remarks above, Internet Scout Project, vol. 3 (2004), #15, or the American Scientist Online. Spacepotato 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Relevant list, however structure reorganization and some clean-up work are needed. @pple complain 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Desperate Housewives cast members[edit]
Another list of people who appeared on desperate housewives, once or twice. This is getting crazy how many of these lists am I going to find. Ridernyc 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Jericho cast members[edit]
Poorly written list of minor characters. The show was canceled after one season. I don't think we need list with entries like "# Musashi Alexander - Roy Hinkley (1 episode) and Townsperson #2 (1 episodes)" not one single edit has been made to the page since the author created it on Aug 13th 2007. Ridernyc 21:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Cue cards used in Subterranean Homesick Blues Video[edit]
Cruft of an extremely trivial kind. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 08:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of one-time characters and guest stars on Desperate Housewives[edit]
List of characters that appeared one time on Desperate housewives. I could list go into detail about how this violates WP:Plot and other policies and guideline but I think this clearly something that is in no way encyclopedic. I fell bad because a ton of work has been put into it, but it really should not be on wikipedia Ridernyc 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] William Chambers (actor)[edit]
Another hoax created by Rozrozroz (talk · contribs); this person doesn't seem to exist, nor does the show he was allegedly best known for - unless my Google-fu is completely broken this afternoon. The creator has a major pattern of hoaxes, several of which are up for deletion right now. Delete as soon as possible. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 17:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Janssen-Cilag[edit]
Appears to fail WP:CORP. No coverage from reliable secondary sources. Ghits appear to be entirely press releases, promotional items, and corporate directory listings. Doctorfluffy 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to The Rules of Attraction. Non-admin closure. --Polaron | Talk 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sean Bateman[edit]Non-notable fictional character, per WP:FICT, no secondary sources available AndalusianNaugahyde 19:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to List of DuckTales characters. This seems to be a more appropriate target since there is already mention of the character there. Non-admin closure. --Polaron | Talk 21:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Gandra Dee[edit]Non-notable, in-universe only fictional character. Fails WP:FICT requirement for reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject matter. Ghits appear to be confined to fansites and cartoon forums. Article itself states this character is largely non-notable within the universe. Doctorfluffy 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kondreman[edit]A webcomic whose sole claim to fame is being published in a newspaper in a country whose population is less than 5% of London's. And not Greater London either. No independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as definite hoax and general waste of time. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Moses f. stevens[edit]
This looks like a hoax to me. As original PROD notes, this 1909 baseball player does not seem to exist. • Gene93k 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mike Evans (journalist)[edit]This is a declined CSD. Tagging editor says it is a piece of complete fiction. A hoax is not a reason for CSD so I bring it here for a decision. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was with respect to JodyB, speedy delete as hoax and creations of a banned user. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Patrick Clark (journalist)[edit]
I am moving this to AfD after declining the CSD request. The editor who tagged the article as speedy says it is complete fiction. The community will know and decide appropriately JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anthony Anderson (urinator)[edit]
Constested prod. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied. Some bored people hosting their silliness on Wikipedia. Fang Aili talk 19:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] King Lamin[edit]I declined this as a speedy because I think some assertion of notability is made. However the article may be a hoax and does not seem supported by proper attribution to reliable sources. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 18:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Valas Hune[edit]Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} deleted, so taking it to AfD. Mikeblas 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] A. Wyatt Mann[edit]
Fails notability. The reference is simply a cartoon and not a reliable source. Along those lines, this article does not include 3rd party sources. Inferences and words like 'obviously' lead me to believe this is original research as well. So notability issues, no RS, OR. the_undertow talk 18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Smeg (vulgarism)[edit]
Dicdef, neologism, trivia, appears to fail WP:RS WP:TRIVIA and WP:FICT. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dicdef of a made up from a TV show.17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
The result was Delete, nothing here to merge that isn't already in her mother's article — Caknuck 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Tatiana Iuel[edit]Wholly non-notable four or five year old, her article is a carbon copy of several others. Delete or merge (which seems to be unlikely). The subject has done nothing of note and her remote position in line of succession to the throne is noted on that article, but does not make her individually notable. Charles 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Halueth Never[edit]
Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} deleted by User:Addedtried without comment, so bringing it to AfD. Mikeblas 17:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I Will Be[edit]Delete - Non-notable album track. anemone
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 02:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Harkle Harpell[edit]
{{orphan}}, {{inuniverse}}, {{primarysources}}, {{notability}}, and {{prod}} tags were removed by User:71.108.52.19 with the comment "reverting idiots". With the "disputed" prod, I'm bringing the issue to AfD. Mikeblas 17:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This character appears in several of R.A Salvatore's books and is a rather significant character in the The Hunter's Blades Trilogy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.88.9 (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as nonsense. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Priorian[edit]This seems to be some sort of fringe hypothesis with a lack of sources or notability. Google search yields little. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, I think it satisfies category a7, no assertion of notability, but we'll call it WP:SNOW to be safe. NawlinWiki 20:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Cris P[edit](Sigh...) Contested prod, so here we go wasting everyone's time... Unsigned musician with no releases, no media coverage whatsoever and not even a myspace page let alone a single reliable source. — iridescent 17:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep without consensus, but stubify to remove violations of copyright law, the rules on biographies of living persons, and the rule against a skewed point of view. The subject appears to be quite notable based on the verifiablity of some sources and the large number of Ghits. The Washington Times is not a reliable source, but there are others, including the New York Times and Washington Post, with more than trivial mentions of this person. There were about equal numbers of keeps, deletes, and comments.[1] The default is to keep and stubify in such cases. This article should be watched carefully by admins. Bearian 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] David Emory[edit]
A radio talkshow host from California - and the article is nothing but an unsourced essay about his tinfoilhattery. Escaped Nazis are running the global economy, and along with the CIA conspired to kill Jews at the Munich Massacre, and now are in league with Al Quaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Republican party.....please. -Docg 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Googling (and presumably other searches) will be more productive if you look for "Dave Emory" - it gets 4x as many hits as David. I've listened to him for years, but I don't know how notable he is outside the Bay Area. --Jamoche 09:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC. --Fang Aili talk 18:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mercy Fall[edit]Apparently non-notable band; completely unsourced article and while there are shedloads of ghits, they all appear to be blogs, myspace pages & Wiki mirrors. Much of the article also seems to be a cut-and-paste from AMG. Not prodding due to the multiple article contributors, none of whom appear to have seen any problem with it — perhaps there is some notability here that I'm missing? — iridescent 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Page renaming is a subject for the talk page. --Fang Aili talk 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Republic of China on Taiwan[edit]
neologism, POV fork of Republic of China, Taiwan, History of Taiwan, and Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China Ngchen 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The nominator's argument that this is not covered in "reliable published works... such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries... and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations" was not addressed, let alone refuted. It is apparently true based on Google news, books, and scholar searches. WP:IAR seems irrelevant here as retaining an unsourced article is not improving Wikipedia, which is the only time that we ignore rules. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bash.org[edit]AfDs for this article:
Bash.org does not meet the guidelines for notability. Please read those notability guidelines. Just because a website is moderately popular does not mean it meets those guidelines. This article should be deleted. 1. Bash.org has not been mentioned in "reliable published works... such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries... and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." 2. Bash.org has been mentioned in websites, but only in two forms: a. "Trivial coverage, such as... (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." b. Unreliable, obscure websites that focus on an obscure period in which a few moderators argued with the administrators. Reliability is a key criterion for Wikipedia sources. Both of these types of sources are unacceptable according to the notability guidelines. Since there is no reliable, non-trivial source that has covered bash.org, this article should be deleted. 3. Finally, Bash is not sufficiently popular to justify overlooking the rules. According to Alexa, it's not even in the top 10,000 most popular sites. Slashdot, by contrast, is the 765th most popular. I think if Bash were in the top 1000 or even possibly the top 5000, it might be justifiable to ignore notability rules. Bash just isn't popular enough. I think Bash.org is a fine site, and I've enjoyed it for a long time, but that doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. PubliusPresent 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Black Dog Publishing[edit]
Non-notable publisher. Article was recreated shortly after being deleted per an expired prod. Only outside reference is trivial, and a Google search only really indicates that yes, they publish books. Author of previous version Andrew2312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also spammed articles like No Wave and London Eye with ads for books by this publisher. --Finngall talk 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Existence on appearance, longevity and reproductivity phenomenon[edit]
Undiluted original research. Pure tautology "patterns exist to an extent … proportionally to their frequency of appearance"! Author removes the prod but does not provide any references! (Mikael you have been editing Wikipedia long enough, you should know better.) -- RHaworth 16:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Renata 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Obner[edit]Not Notable Jemather 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Renzu Kwai Aikido Club, Sidcup[edit]
Non-notable single aikido club. Claims to be the first of this particular style of aikido but it is still very small single club and really the age is not notable in itself. Very few individual aikido clubs are on wikipedia.Peter Rehse 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. henrik•talk 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ines Cudna[edit]Completely unsourced article about a softcore porn model that has been around on Wikipedia for a long time. It doesn't even assert any particular importance or significance, and could be validly speedy deleted as A7. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Table of characters in the Fire Emblem series[edit]AfDs for this article:
I obviously wasn't thinking properly when I closed the first AfD of this article. This content cannot be transwikied to Wikisource as Wikisource only accepts previously published material that is now free. Content needs to a single published source (not a combination of several or OR) for that project. As the page seems to be outside the scope of this encyclopedia and there doesn't seem to be a suitable target to send it to, I think we're going to have to delete it - but I refer it back in case I've missed anything. WjBscribe 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It can't really be merged into the gaming articles—it will damage the quality of the articles to have this sort of information. Besides, mist have their own relating sub-list of characters. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Artix Entertainment[edit]AfDs for this article:
Article cites no independent verifiable sources. It was created by an employee of the company (see User:Skyboy59) who is responsible for much of the article's original and updated text. This is in patent violation of Wikipedia Policy regarding original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthanado (talk • contribs) 2007/10/31 13:41:31
I dunno why it should be deleted, it's a notable company that's on the rise. It's also false that Skyboy created it, he's just a popular member. If you feel that "it's too much advertising." then you can take those parts out.
The result was keep. John254 17:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Perimeter Mall[edit]
This article goes to some lengths to explain the many and varied ways in which this mall is pretty much indistinguishable from a hundred others. It wasn't the first in the area, isn't the biggest, has no particular claim to historic or architectural uniqueness, and in every discernible way is just another shopping mall. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — fails notability guidelines. In the future, please be nice to everyone in deletion discussions — there's no need to rude. --Haemo 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Venomcrack[edit]Notability. By way of an irrelevant aside for the gentle reader to take for whatever value it's worth, I know the author of this software, and this smacks of a vanity article of his own creation. Katavothron 13:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hansonc 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Animal City (film)[edit]
Future film with no claim of notability. 0 non-wiki ghits for this film with Elijah Wood. No listing at IMDb. Either a hoax or completely non-notable. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 13:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Grayson mcgregor[edit]
Fictional character that does not meet notability requirements of WP:FICT Pilotbob 13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 02:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kalish[edit]This article provides no primary sources and no reliable secondary sources. What sources there are have been taken from fansites, and cannot be accepted as reliable. The plot summary does not provide any evidence of real-world notability for this fictional race of people. Gavin Collins 13:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, non-notable, previously deleted as spam. Admin closure. Dreadstar † 18:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Scripts & Scruples and associated pages[edit]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mouse Jockey[edit]Contested prod. Highly dubious dicdef, which I doubt is even appropriate for Wiktionary and certainly not appropriate for Wikipedia. — iridescent 13:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per edison. Samuel 22:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Chicken Fried Radio[edit]
Non-notable podcast. Aside from some reviews in non-notable sources, there's only trivial media coverage. --Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Giant Monsters Attack Japan![edit]AfDs for this article:
While this is, I believe, its third nomination, none of the arguments made in AfD2 seem to have nailed the main point here. It's got nothing to do with crystal balling at all. Under the notability guidelines for films, "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." This much is clear: standalone articles should only be created when a film enters production. As is the reasoning behind it: too many instances exist of films which are either constantly pushed back, or collapse altogether (American Gangster is an example that had a director and cast attached and still fell apart). While in certain circumstances it is prudent to ignore all rules (perhaps when excessive notability has been demonstrated or the start of production is imminent) this potential film surely does not warrant such treatment and a better place should be found for the information contained therein. Similar methods have worked for films such as Jurassic Park IV, Spider-Man 4 and The Hobbit (2009 film). Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 12:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Weak Delete I think the film is going to be made and soon, as Trey Parker is directing, and who is very hot within the industry. But the fact the film has still not started shooting, means not notable. In three month it will be different. Is it worth leaving for that time? scope_creep 14:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Teflon character[edit]
Dictionary definition. Transwikied. There's no concrete list of people it's been applied to, and it's only really notable in two or three cases. Chris Cunningham 12:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep. That name, Teflon Tone for Tony Blair was used in the British press for over 10 years. Everybody in the UK knows that jibe. A definite keep. The article needs cleaned up and some sourced added. I also think the Teflon Tone is in the Oxford dictionary. scope_creep 15:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Holy Conflict[edit]
Contested prod. Apparently self-published forthcoming book; totally unsourced other than the author's blog, no assertion of notability, violates WP:CRYSTAL. — iridescent 12:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nowheristan[edit]
Is Wikipedia a "free" "encyclopedia"? All the comments posted on the article NOWHERISTAN can be acceptable: those calling for the deletion and the others showing their support, but this depends on HOW we understand the leading concept of WIDKIPEDIA, claiming to be a "free" "encyclopedia", and WHO reads Wikipedia and WHERE in the world. What is an "encyclopedia"? Following the definition given by the Cambridge dictionnary of language, it is "a book or set of books containing many articles arranged in alphabetical order which eather with the whole of human knowledge or a particular part of it". Following the same dictionary "free" means "not limited or controlled". Who reads Wikipedia? All those who are fed up with Encarta, Larousse, Universalis etc. etc. Those who are looking something else than the conventional traditional encyclopedias, those who are using a site that provides the information that not any other encyclopedia do. Where are located the Wikipedia fans? Everywhere on the planet: Wikipedia exists in all the written languages of the world: european and anglo saxon languages, but also in Kurdi, Occitan, Tagalog, Scottish, Romani, Sardanian, armenian, basque and many other languages some of them spoken in very small regions or maybe one or two tribes... That means that when ANYONE on the planet wants to FIND an information that not a single encylopedia can give, he goes to WIKIPEDIA. For this, and being numerous now in Lebanon and also in many other countries (Egypt, France, USA, Yugoslavia...) to be interested by the NOWHERISTAN, I think we have the RIGHT to be informed, and Wikipedia "THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA" has the DUTY to give us the information. That's why I want the article NOWHERISTAN be kept, with maybe light amendments that can make this article fit Wikipedia in the best way. --Siguiriya 12:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)— Siguiriya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A Nowheristani citizen (and proud to be) Siguiriya 22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)— Siguiriya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment to RiverHockey : did you say advocates? Advocates defend criminals and this article is not related to any crime or a criminal content! We can now mail to the 50k Nowheristani citizens asking them to register on Wikipedia and leave strong keeps. But we dont want and wont accept to act so. This article is purely informative, and does not need any advocate for its defense. We are asking that is remains in Wikipedia, where it founds its right place. Siguiriya 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] J.T. Tinney[edit]Subject may not have sufficient notability for an article; there is no attribution to reliable sources. Speedy deletion declined because there seems some assertion of notability. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 12:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] ===Charles Alexander Moffat===Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Failed predictions (2nd nomination)
No credible sources: all references are either webrings, paid-use sites or dead links. All other claims are unsourced. This has been tagged since May 2007 as not satisfying notability guidelines with no apparent improvements forthcoming. Freshacconci | Talk 12:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Failed predictions[edit]AfDs for this article:
A number of objections, culled from the Talk page:
--Waggawag 10:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Natalie Reeves[edit]
Found whilst doing an AfD clean-up: AfD created but not followed through; I suspect deletion is being requested for notability reasons. Procedural nomination - I have no opinion at this time. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 11:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. This is an OR essay and should be deleted per the consensus below. I am also setting a redirect editorially per the suggesting of UsaSatsui. Eluchil404 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Problems with the articles of confederation[edit]
Prod removed without comment. Completely unreferenced original research amounting to a POV personal essay. Evb-wiki 11:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Midway Arcade Treasures: Extended Play[edit]
This collection of video games seems to fail WP:N. I leave it open here whether the individual games are notable; but it is completely obscure to me what encyclopedic content should be added about the compilation of games. (PROD was contested for formal reasons.) -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Just because something violates a policy (in this case COI), it doesn't mean to say it should be deleted. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Daniel Weinreb[edit]
Non-notable computer scientist, article originated with COI problems, but still has no evidence of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Doxygen. GlassCobra 13:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Dimitri van Heesch[edit]
This article has been a single-line sub-stub for over three years. Either delete or merge to Doxygen. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, and endorse the original speedy deletion. No assertion or indication of notability, no reliable sources in evidence. The "keep" opinions are all indifferent to the pertinent policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:N, and are accordingly not taken into account. Sandstein 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] No 4th Wall to Break[edit]
This was speedied, yet I can't agree with the reasoning. It may well not be notable enough for Wikipedia, but AFD is the place to determine this. Not speedy deletion. Ta bu shi da yu 09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, what does it really matter? Information is information, and I thought the goal behind Wikipedia was to centralize as much of it as possible. So long as it's accurate, why does it matter if it's deemed "important"? Importance is hugely subjective - if I were in charge of deciding what articles are important enough to keep in WP, you'd see a whole lot less about Hollywood entertainment, for example. Yet Hollywood information stays - I can go check out Hally Barre's bio if I'm so inclined. Why shouldn't I be able to dig up information on some obscure webcomic, too? Herve661 01:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good-Ash 04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Non-admin closure ([32]) overturned. Neil 13:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jewish subversion[edit]
This paragraph (it is a stub really) is an obvious WP:POVFORK that can become a POV magnet as well. Its dangerous and provocative opening sentence starts with "Adolf Hitler claimed to defend Germany from Jewish subversion" in which case Hitler would be creating a neologism and it would be violating WP:NEO on Wikipedia. There is already a well-established Antisemitic canard article into which this can easily be incorporated. Wikipedia does not need separate articles about all the supposed antisemitic sayings of Hitler. IZAK 09:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to delete that too now? By the way, I can see that the AfD nominator is Jewish. This isn't a personal attack or anything, but I get the feeling that censorship is at hand due to an uncomfortable topic, and you have to remember, WP:NOTCENSORED. Jewish subversion is hardly a neologism, it is even used by the Jerusalem post:[34] And many other newspapers and scholarly books: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Sorry, but this is an independent topic, and deleting this topic is censorship and nothing else. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:53 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
The result was speedy deleted by User:Dreadstar (speedy WP:CSD#A7 No assertion of importance/significance). Admin closure. Dreadstar † 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Rachel bisdee[edit]
Non-notable actress, with no claims for notability under the criteria. Google search brings up zero news results, general Google search shows only about 450 results, most of which are either MySpace type pages, forums, or the like. No verifiable sources given that demonstrate the notability, just a media/talent manager site listing. CSD tag was removed by creator of page, without using the hangon, and no discussion on the talk page. Perhaps someone here can find proof of notability, but I'm unable to do so. Ariel♥Gold 09:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No reliable sources to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Arilyn Moonblade[edit]
Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} was removed by User:Addedtried without comment, so moving to AfD. Mikeblas 08:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 00:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] House Do'Urden[edit]
Non-notable fictional group. {{prod}} was removed by User:71.108.52.19 with the comment "reverting idiot", so taking to AfD. Mikeblas 08:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No reliable sources to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Vangerdahast[edit]Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} was deleted by User:Addedtried without comment, so opening an AfD. Mikeblas 08:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No reliable sources to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Taegan Nightwind[edit]
Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} removed by User:71.108.52.19 without comment, so moving to AfD. Mikeblas 06:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Eve (Tv Series)[edit]
Entirely unsourced speculation with no assertion of notability. Article is not linked to from any other Wiki articles. DAJF 06:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No reliable sources provided to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kierkan Rufo[edit]Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} removed without comment by User:71.108.52.19, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas 06:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Egerton House Hotel[edit]
Non-notable hotel. • Lawrence Cohen 06:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Elk Tribe[edit]Non-notable fictional group. {{prod}} removed without comment by User:AlainValien, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas 06:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No reliable sources provided to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Galaeron Nihmedu[edit]
Non-notable fictional character. {{nofootnotes}} and {{prod}} removed by User:71.108.52.19, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas 05:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lana and Clark[edit]
Deletion nomination Article is a personal essay about the relationship between two characters from the TV show smallville. As original as can be. No hope for anything but an OR essay here, so it should be deleted. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] DO NOT DELETE It is an article based on two fictional characters from Smallville. Fans of the couple would find the article interesting and entertaining. There is no point deleting it as it allows people to know background information about Lana and Clark's relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddevils10 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 03:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keith L. Muth[edit]
contested prod; biography of marginally notable or non-notable individual, minimal coverage by secondary sources, page creator's name suggests possible WP:AUTO Dppowell 05:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Alum Rock earthquake[edit]
Deletion nomination Non-notable earthquake. No evidence quake caused any damage or will have anything but a fleeting notability. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Rutherford Close[edit]
This street is not sufficiently notable for inclusing in Wikipedia Pilotbob 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 08:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Whale Song (Pearl Jam song)[edit]
Deletion nomination Non-notable song. Never released as a single, no evidence that this song has ANY independant coverage in reliable sources. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Flilf[edit]This was originally tag as a CSD G1, patent nonsense. I rejected it as a speedy as being a neologism is not a speedy criteria, and it is not patent nonsense. I tagged it for PROD as "Non-notable neologism". This was removed by an anon with the comment. "i do object to the deletion of this article -- i think the term's prominent inclusion in the daily show makes it notable". As near as I can tell, this term was invented by the Daily Show. Beyond this usage there appears to be no other reliable sources using this term. Delete Dsmdgold 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ken Farley[edit]Seems fake Pilotbob 04:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hillside Court[edit]
Residence halls are generally not notable. It is questionable whether there is any assertion of notability Pilotbob 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 21:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bozeman Icedogs[edit]
This junior hockey team is not notable Pilotbob 04:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. → AA (talk) — 10:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Tibbit[edit]The subject of this article lacks real world notability, a real world context cannot be established, there are no sources and I seriously doubt that it can be cited with secondary sources to meet WP:FICT Pilotbob 04:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all and redirect. There is clear consensus the articles should not be retained. The decision is whether to merge or to delete. Given the lack of sourcing raised by a number of editors, merging such content would violate WP:V, and so deletion is appropriate. Neil ☎ 12:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Ghost Whisperer episodes[edit]
Episodes from a TV show, looking at List of Ghost Whisperer episodes most episodes are redliniked. Fails WP:NOTE. The episodes have had {{Notability}} on them for a while. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to White Plume Mountain. Neil ☎ 09:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Aegwareth[edit]This is a short article about a nonnotable subject. There is no real world context and there are no sources outside of the D&D gaming world. Pilotbob 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ☎ 09:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake[edit]
Instead of placing a simple The article was tagged with a
The article should be kept. The only reason why there is little to no damage is because of the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989. California has been rocking and buildings are becoming being modified to handle earthquakes. This an important earthquake for California. Remember the rest of the Pacific Rim has had stronger earthquakes and if we don't relieve enough pressure on this side, it has been stated we will have a very major earthquake. Noting the 5.6 earthquake may not seem very important but the faults need to let loose on this side of the Pacific Rim. It seems people would rather more damage and devastion be done. We should be happy we have learned and added precautions to keep us safer. I believe it is important to note this earthquake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.87.217 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 04:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Solveig sadnes[edit]
Because of claims of a single charting in Japan, I've brought this here. Although if there is only one charting song, I don't think she qualifies under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC Pigman 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The single "Marie" was a #1 pop single in Japan, Keep There are hundreds of singers / groups on Wikipedia that only have 1 chart topper Jimmy_Eat_World SoHo [51] [[The_Lightning_Seeds] Faster,_Pussycat!_Kill!_Kill! Oleta_Adams Kyper Deee-Lite and thats just the a few random ones from a One Hit Wonder search. So only have a single hit is not a good reason to delete 153.90.88.9 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The surname is spelt differently in the article than in the article title, BTW. TomorrowTime 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Somerset Primary[edit]
Contested speedy. Author states None of the Bermuda schools are notable world wide, however within Bermuda Somerset Primary is the number one primary school as revealed in an independant survey of Bermuda's schools last year". Seems to me a valid reason to keep, if it can be sourced, but then again, I'm not sure. Ideas? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 2007/10/19 22:30:30 [reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] MOREP[edit]Lebanese political movement. Written by Morepist so clearly there is COI. No independent refs. Is it notable? -- RHaworth 09:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 22:10, 11/6/2007 International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology[edit]
Article deleted through ProD, but contested afterwards through email. Original ProD reason (not by me) was "Lacks any independent secondary sources to establish notability; fails WP:ORG.". It seems indeed to be an organisation which is promoted heavily by a small number of people, but which lacks a more general notability in its field. Fram 07:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ballet sneakers[edit]
Non-notable product. I couldn't find a good reason to speedy a product like this. If there is a speedy reason for a situation like this, I'd love to know it. Pigman 03:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Andrew Michael Dasburg[edit]
Non-notable painter, no assertation of notability beyond an obituary in the newspaper. Other "source" is from promotional website. Some guy 03:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Rachel Rawlinson[edit]
Outside of her appearance in several plays listed, her only IMDb listing is for Flushed Away. Unless significant sources can be found, I'm suggesting non-notable by Wikipedia standards. Pigmanwhat?/trail 03:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: Speedily deleted. Apparent hoax - only Google hits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. Previously deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Gwimporini. - Mike Rosoft 10:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] El Gwimporini[edit]AfDs for this article:
Possible hoax, unsourced, and Google turns up nothing outside of Wikipedia, including for "Skipsey Animation Studios." Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 03:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yeremi Vargas[edit]
A speedy template was removed from this page so I'm bringing it here. The article was created to "raise awareness", but I doubt this is a notable bio/case. Not quite a memorial but close to it. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for raising awareness. Pigmanwhat?/trail 03:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kimette Hughes[edit]
Non notable person, I don't see what her claim to fame is. Former model, but google search turns up bad results [63] Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Without references, the Keep argument does not apply. CitiCat ♫ 04:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Disgaea 3 characters[edit]
No primary or secondary sources provided as evidence of notability outside of the game from which these fictional characters are derived. Gavin Collins 03:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Scott Cuthbert (drummer)[edit]
I'm not really 100% sure of this one but a PROD was removed from it so I'm bringing it here. Near as I can tell from this article, his early membership in Everclear is his sole claim to notability. I think he was on their first CD. However nothing else here is notable by Wikipedia standards. The few WP:RS I found mostly mention him in passing, not significantly. Plus this mostly seems like WP:OR with possibly some autobio thrown in. I'm ambivilent but come down on the delete side of the equation. Pigmanwhat?/trail 03:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per A7. Hemlock Martinis 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anthony Willington-Berry[edit]Non-notable rapper. Google returns zero hits outside of Wikipedia. Article itself is a shambles. Probably a speedy, but I know nothing about rap so I'll give others a chance to speak. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Brunswick South Primary School (2nd nomination)[edit]AfDs for this article:
Article asserts no notability. A google news search brings up 27 articles, all of which appear to be about the school having a butterfly farm, being a polling place (like most schools), how the fees are rising (like most schools), and the school getting a facelift. All of which i feel are non-notable. That said i feel the article fails notability. Twenty Years 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section Break[edit]
On rethink is too long to merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
section 3[edit]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Sandahl (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising). Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Multiple format access[edit]
NN software, created by author Toddst1 02:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Resurgent insurgent 04:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] B&r[edit]AfDs for this article:
Late night TV show broadcast "somewhere between channels 37 & 38". Ie. pure hoax. -- RHaworth 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arguments to keep consist of asserting schools are inherently notable, and the existence of other school articles. Neil ☎ 09:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wahroonga Public School[edit]
Article asserts no notability, it was started like most schools, because of a need. It fails WP:N and WP:ORG, has no WP:RS and is not WP:V. Fails them all. Twenty Years 02:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete all g1, g3, obvious hoaxery/vandalism. NawlinWiki 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Derlangun[edit]Add Die Sacer Derlangun and Villerdein to this AfD. Corvus cornix 01:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hoax. There is no verification that any such language exists. Zero Google hits. Corvus cornix 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Borderline case, but given the subject has asked for deletion, what harm does it do? If he gets any more notable in the future, it can always be recreated. Neil ☎ 09:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Robert Tsai[edit]This nomination is made on behalf of User:Rtsai, who appears somewhat confused about the proper process for deletion; in a prod on the article, he said, "This proposal for deletion is made by the subject of the article. He hardly finds that a single achievement, here a role in a notable film, makes him notable, but more importantly he doesn't want to be an article in Wikipedia." Since he also put an entry in AFD, I decided to complete the AFD, and I will remain neutral as to the article's fate. Brianyoumans 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 17:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Johnny Boy[edit]No assertion of notability at all. "Critical acclaim" links to one RS, but the other to a blog. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 the article actively asserted non-notability. GRBerry 16:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Haji Mirza Payame Ba'i[edit]AfDs for this article:
Original research, dubious "source", even a dubious subject (a unknown mystic who died in 1999? Rmhermen 00:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sports injuries[edit]
Apparently TW has failed me. Let's see if I can re-state my original line of thinking: This article strikes me as un-encyclopedic. It was originally created by an anon way back in 2002 (!!), and lay dormant for two years. Since then, there's been activity, but even now, the article is little more than a lead-in telling us the blatantly obvious ("Sports injuries are injuries that are the result of playing sports"), then a lengthy "treatment" section that seems little more than a glorified how-to. If it were a more recent addition, I might lean towards WP:SOFIXIT, but seeing the edits from the past five years only reinforce my gut instinct that this article is hopeless. Action Jackson IV 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 2XS FM[edit]No assertion of Notability, was replaced in 2005 by some other station. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count)
The result was Speedy Delete - invoking WP:CSD#G11 This article is being used as blatent advertising with a promotional mention on the subject's blog stating "Tom Landschof Strategic Networks and Strategic Networking featured on Wikipedia". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strategic Networking[edit]
This article is in a sordid state and feels like an ad. Marlith T/C 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Clear-cut delete. -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Tara Nulty[edit]Non-notable actress with no major credits or awards. Clarityfiend 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Pupkin[edit]not notable per standards for webcomics. RJFJR 16:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|