Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 26
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Should mergehistory be enabled for importers?
- Should WP:TITLEFORMAT take precedence over WP:CRITERIA?
- Open letter regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's potential disclosure of editors' personal information
- Extended-confirmed pending changes and preemptive protection in contentious topics
- Are portals encyclopedic, and are they appropriate redirect targets?
- Should recall petitions be limited to signatures only?
- Should the length of recall petitions be shortened?
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
The result was no consensus. We owe deletion candidates a "speedy trial", so a third relist is really too much. Clearly no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. There is no notability by relation, this is just another dime-a-dozen act. JBsupreme (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to State University of New York at Potsdam. The article is written in inappropriate tone and the name is not backed by sources. However, the topic is somehow relevant so the best option here is a merge to the parent article. Tone 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is pure synthesis and original research. No sources calling it the "Potsdam Miracle" found at Google news, books, nor through searches on Lexis or Westlaw. The two Google scholar sources doesn't seem like enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Tone 19:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable baseball player/manager. Never made it past the low level minor leagues in either job. No sources that aren't notes in a list of people that got jobs or blurbs. Wizardman 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Tone 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not fullfilling Wiki notability standards and created sourcing personal blogs and postings by an ISP suspected on talk page to be the subject of the article himself. Whitespider23 (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. — Jake Wartenberg 14:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Appears to consist entirely of original research. Based almost completely on one 1999 CNN article which doesn't even mention a "Kennedy Curse". Of the other 3 sources used in the article, two are not reliable and also don't mention a "Kennedy Curse". The third (from Newsweek) is used as a citation for events that occurred 15 years after the source was written. Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=%22kennedy+tragedies%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=%22kennedy+tragedy%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Maybe to take the heat off of the title, maybe we should make it "Kennedy curse" instead of "Kennedy Curse," which implies that they are technically "cursed." Maybe it should simply become "Kennedy tragedies," but I think "Kennedy curse" returns more entries than "kennedy tragedy." 174.16.130.70 (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very notable subject and it is properly sourced.72.155.236.5 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC) — 72.155.236.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Keep Wikipedia should not get into political correctness. The subject is in the popular folklore (like it or not) and Wikipedia will serve to provide coherency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consultant11 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC) — Consultant11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keeep - the whole premise behind the topic is dumb, but so is that behind the idea of a flat earth. In both cases, however, the topics are notable and knowledge of them is widespread. Malick78 (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Tone 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A nonnotable neologism for a way of cannabis smoking coined by "a group of friends" with the only ref from urban Dictionary - Altenmann >t 23:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been speedied once and it declined, though it doesn't meet WP:CORP and it fails notability. Spam should not allow in the article and it is purely a minor company. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Black Kite 22:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
absence of word mughal kiyani in most of references and references given in article didnt matches with real context and references are misused — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitor (talk • contribs)
the actual point is about the article the references tells nothing about mughal kiyani (the title of article) insteadly it talks about kiyanis history or mughals history seperatly note mughals is a separate tribe mainly refer to mongols and kiyani is a surname used by ghakkars in rawalpindi region of pakistan which claims to be a persian tribe due to their claim of descendents of ancient kianian kings of iran and also by some tribes in afghanistan and iran who claim to be descents of ancient semi mythilogical kianian kings mughals and kiyanis are seperate words used by seperate groups of peaple any historical document didnt tells us any relation between them the main question was about mughal kiyani any reference given by writer of article didnt contain the word mughal kiyani and didnt talks about mughal kiyani that what is its history what is a valid prove of mughal kiyani being a real mughal clan as writer has written it as a clan of mughal tribe the writer has given invalid and false proves about them i think the basic purpose of wikipedia is to provide a valid and true information based on valid and sufficiant proves as i say above most of information given in article didnt discuss the real topic mughal kiyani and which disuss is not valid or which proves that mughal kiyani is a clan so my request was that delete this article which is based on falses references and the information given about kiyanis and mughals should be moved to their seperate articles(kiyani,ghakkar and mughal) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.45.99.193 (talk • contribs) according to wikipedia deletion policy that Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed in the light of above reasons for deletion in wikipedia deletion policy this article should be deleted because this article(kiyani mughal) didnt attributes to reliable sources original theories and conclusions and this article is also a hoaxe and all attempts to find a reliable sources to verify this article have failed these all reason are applying on article mughal kiyani and information written in article about mughal kiyani so this should be delete as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitor (talk • contribs) 08:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
mr metropolian90 what should i do to convinced u I was talking about the articles main topic mughal kiyani the writer of the article divides it in to 3 paragraphs with following headlines history ,other kiyani tribes and diaspora in history paragraph in starting lines and in dispora he writes about mughal kiyanis in which only in history paragraph he gives 3 references about mughal kiyanis most of references are misused and didnt proves or gives us a valid information for examples as writer gives a reference from punjab caste p212 Others say that the Mughals proper, and especially the Chughattas and Qizilbashes are Kayanis the full line or paragraph is as I have not been able to obtain saticfactory information regarding this word(kiyani).some says the city of kayan was the capital of kai kayus kai kusru and kai kubad and some says that the ghakkars callthemselves kiyani because they claim descent from these three kings.Others say that the Mughals proper, and especially the Chughattas and Qizilbashes are Kayanis and that the ghakkars call them selves canani or cananits because they claim descent from jacob or yacub who lived in canaan and that is the word which has been misread as kiyani(http://www.archive.org/stream/panjabcastes00ibbe#page/n7/mode/2up) first of all author of the book(punjab castes) was not sure about above information which is based on different opinions secondly it didnt contain the word mughal kiyani main topic of the article or gives us a direct wording or use of word mughal kiyani or hteir existences as a clan the writer just misused the reference similarly other 2 references are also miused eg references from punjabi muslamans p94 and punjab cheifs p216 given by writer was not founded in original textMedia:http://www.archive.org/stream/punjabimusalmans00wikeuoft#page/94/mode/1up http://www.apnaorg.com/books/punjab-chiefs/ as u know that any information without acceptable or valid references is considered as invaild and anyone cannot proved it without references.as i say above that mughal kiyani is the main topic or name of article but its reference from real context didnt gives us a valid or realiable information or even didnt talks about the topic about the main topic mughal kiyani so it should be deleted under the deletion policy of wikipedia the paragraph other kiyani tribes mainly talks about kianis history and mughals history separatly and didnt gives or talk about mughal kiyani as seprate articles of mughals and kiyanis were given so this information should be written or moved to these articles separatly as information given about mughals should be moved to mughal article and kiyani information should be moved to kiyani article even now if u were not convinced then plz my freind tell me how u will convinced for its deletion according to wikipedia deletion policy that Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed this article should be deleted because there is not a single reliable source which verify this article and i didnt found a single reliable source which confrimed it so plz my friend delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danitor (talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i think my friend dgg u didnt understand what i want to say or what was my point for suggesting this article for deletion.in article writer mainly writes about the topic of mughal kiyani which is also the title of article it simply means that the article is about mughal kiyani as u know that any information is not considered as proveable or acceptable without realiable references or sources in wikipedia in article mughal kiyani writer writes on his own giving wrong references if we would found any realiable reference about mughal kiyani we would discuss it but there is not a single realiable source which even talks about the mughal kiyani or given information in the article u will even not able to found a single realiable source regarding the article. main point is that there is not a single realiable source which confrim the information given in article or even talks about the article so it should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.100.122 (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to List of schools in Trafford. Tone 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 23:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Woodley, Greater Manchester#Education. Tone 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Majorly talk 23:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to List of schools in Stockport#Primary schools. Tone 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Schools get awards all the time, it's nothing special. Majorly talk 22:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Werneth, Greater Manchester. Tone 19:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Walkden#Education. Tone 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to List of schools in Bury. Tone 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Tone 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very narrowly available TV channel, no sources found at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to List of schools in Oldham. Tone 19:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to List of schools in Trafford. Tone 19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to List of schools in Trafford. Tone 19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Tone 19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this person is not clear to me. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to List of schools in Bury. Spartaz Humbug! 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school with no importance asserted. Prod was removed without comment. Majorly talk 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
The notability of this person is not clear to me. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this person is not clear to me. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization, fails WP:CORP, Gnews search produces all of 3 hits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Lake Worth Lagoon. merge makes sense since its going to be an obvious redirect anyway Spartaz Humbug! 19:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's non-notable event. Someone saw a wake on the surface of the water and called it a "muck monster". Donald Albury 22:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge Not notable by itself. Not opposed to full delete, but merge makes sense. Whitespider23 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to 1998 Little League World Series. Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The players on the team fail WP:N and this team specifically should not have their own separate page. If anything this should be merged with 1998 Little League World Series but even then I think that's asking too much. If you look at the page edit history, you'll see that the moniker Cardone22 created the page, and one of the players listed on the roster was a child named Christopher Cardone. It's biased and trivial anyway. Jrcla2 talk 22:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Even if WP:PROF may not be completely met, there is still some WP:N here so I am closing this as a keep (and edit, sure). Tone 20:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Schwartz is not notable according to WP:PROF and there is no evidence of notability under WP:GNG Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] This is debate from talk page:
No.
No AFAIK.
No; unless being the director of the VERITAS project at University of Arizona counts. I would say no.
No.
No; he served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic. None of these are a named/personal chair appointment. No indication of "Distinguished Professor" appointment.
Depends, if his position as director of VERITAS counts for this category than yes, if not than no.
No.
No.
No. So basically Schwartz's notability hinges on the importance of his directorship of VERITAS at U of Arizona. I am not informed enough on that program to comment. Discuss.Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VERITAS directorship is not a highest level position as it is a project within Psychology department. Based on this Schwartz is not notable according to WP:PROF, proposing deletion pursuant to this.Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm proposing deletion of this article on the grounds that Schwartz fails to meet the WP:PROF criteria as per my previous analysis.Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on an internet search, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep, nominator withdrew his nomination. --kelapstick (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]
Prod removed with only the explanation "there is a V word." There isn't. There is an article The V Word, and this dab page should be a redirect. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
