Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 8
- 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 00:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew "the Iron Fist" Birtchnell[edit]
- Matthew "the Iron Fist" Birtchnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possible hoax article about a professional boxer who does not seem to be mentioned on the Internet anywhere, who was defeated by another boxer who is not mentioned on the Internet anywhere, with a cite to a book which also does not seem to be mentioned on the Internet anywhere. I propose that this article be deleted on the ground that it does not appear to demonstrate that its subject meets WP:BIO criteria. The Anome (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — appears to be a hoax, barring further evidence. Can anyone find the ISBN for that book? --Haemo (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax Beeblbrox (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoax. Can't find anything about the subject or the author of the book. If it's not a hoax, it fails WP:BIO anyhow Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V at best; is a hoax at worse. Neither book or author appear to be found on amazon.co.uk or amazon.de as I would have reasonably expected. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The book doesn't even appear in WorldCat, a union catalog covering 10,000+ libraries. If it does exist, it must be hopelessly obscure. EALacey (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Comment: Nor is the putative author listed on WorldCat as having written any books [1]. I cannot find any book with a title on the lines of Die komplette Geschichte der Deutsch Boxen, either.) -- The Anome (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Were it not for the fact that the author of the article has been contributing to Wikipedia for quite some time, I doubt that people would have thought twice about the inauthenticity of this page. Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of sources and lack of record. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:02, 11 March 2008 (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theocratic Realism[edit]
- Theocratic Realism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Short, unsourced article about a possible neologism, which makes the article a candidate for deletion per WP:NEO. Also, a Google search shows too little hits, most of them being the article itself. Victao lopes (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The concept conveyed by such a term is clearly notable in my mind, but the term itself has no notoriety, and the book that allegedly coined it is yet to be published. Give it time. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am the author of the to-be published book and I am not quite ready to have this out in the open. When it is published you may do with it as you will. Please delete this listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divin021 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you want the article to be deleted, you can add the template {{Db-g7}} to the very top of the article. However, considering that the article is in the middle of an afd debate, you should not do that. Wait until the debate is closed. Victao lopes (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I do not think that this is notable. J.delanoygabsadds 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2008 (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 Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to Hqb (talk · contribs) for saving the article. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thornberry Animal Sanctuary[edit]
- Thornberry Animal Sanctuary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article had no assertion of notability when I initially tagged it for speedy. There is one now, but a very weak one. The creator seems to think that the importance of the sanctuary's mission statement constitutes by itself an assertion of notability for the sanctuary itself, which, of course, is not the case. The references, added by a third party, are trivial. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is important, I consider it very informative and is notable enough for Wikipedia in my opinion. So I think it should stay. Jammy (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep'. Information available in independent sources (BBC News Online, e.g.). --Oldak Quill 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The information in the references provided do not verify the contents of the article beyond that the charity exists and that it "rescues thousands of mistreated and abandoned animals each year". I see no significant, in-depth coverage by third-party sources to demonstrate that this is a notable organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmxl5 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I initially tagged an horrible first-person version for deletion as spam. The issue now is notability. I am inclined to say that if every scondary school that can manage to write a decent article about itself is automatically notable; if two platforms on the edge of a park qualify for an article; then an animal sanctuary counts as notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree that the nobility of an organization's mission should be of no significance to its notability for the purpose of WP inclusion. However, I would argue that the referenced third-party coverage is not "trivial" as defined in WP:ORG#Primary criterion. Three of the pieces are specifically about the organization and its founder; and two others illustrate the sanctuary's local and even regional impact. The founder also received national recognition. In general, there is no requirement that all information in an article be referenced to independent sources; for non-controversial, factual details (history, facilities, etc.) WP:ORG says that using primary sources, such as the organization's website, is OK. If the veracity of such information is challenged, it should of course be substantiated or removed; but I don't think this is a significant problem in the current version. Hqb (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2008 (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 as per general consensus. Merger or redirect is left to the disretion of the individual editors -Ravichandar 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty Pleasure[edit]
- Guilty Pleasure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Send My Love to the Dancefloor, I'll See You In Hell (Hey Mister DJ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Church of Hot Addiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The City Is at War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Non-notable/non-charting songs with little or no media coverage and no references (except for one of them, and it's a YouTube link). All fail WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:V. Prod removed (and [2], [3], and [4]) without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to either Cobra Starship or their respective albums Doc StrangeTelepathic MessagesStrange Frequencies 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs expanding, give it some more time for users to add information to it. --Jammy (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Song on a significant album. --Oldak Quill 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being on a notable album does not impart notability to each song—(say it with me everyone:) "Notability is not inherited." —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:27, 9 March 2008 (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 Speedy Delete per WP:NOT. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Grammar with Cindy[edit]
Well-intended but unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and is not designed to be used as a blog, public forum, or space for essays or tutorials. Justin Eiler (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Trzmygly[edit]
This is very probably a hoax. The only reference for it is fr:Trzmygly which is being considered for deletion. _R_ (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. David Eppstein raises an excellent point. Sean William @ 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Lauren Burk[edit]--KEEP--This article may have encyclopedic value considering the legal system, incarceration, punishment, and crime wave in America.
Subject only notable for being murdered. See WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else's points —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.210.153 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) — 72.207.210.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Keep or Rename well-covered media story, making it notable. Natalee Holloway herself is not notable, just her story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: The article Eve Carson was moved to Murder of Eve Carson. These are similar media-driven stories. Moving Lauren Burk to Murder of Lauren Burk should similarly satisfy the complainants on this page. A user has written a proposed guideline on this kind of story at User:Fritzpoll/Notability (criminal acts) and is inviting comments. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The event (her death) is notable, period. Regardless of whether or not she herself is/was notable. It would take a fool not to realize that her story has been blasted all over the news. Like it or not, it has. And, that is what makes it notable. This murder has elicited a huge (national) public reaction. Her story / her death / her murder ... coupled in such proximity with the Eve Carson murder. To argue that this has not gathered national notability is ludicrous. How do people on this page argue that point with a straight face is beyond me. I am indifferent to the name/title of the article. But, certainly the event is notable --- independent of whether or not the individual (Burk) is notable. I'd also basically mimic all that Baseball Bugs has said. His arguments are clearly on point and valid. Everyone else is caught up in pushing some agenda -- and ignoring the plain fact that this is a notable event. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The result was keep. Sources have been added by Faithlessthewonderboy that address the delete concerns. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Paper Trail[edit]
Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Boss of All Bosses[edit]
Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and referenced from an unreliable source. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sofia Talvik[edit]
Lacks any assertion of notability, and fewer assertions found with Uncle Google. I am also nominating the following related pages because as albums they are equally non-notable: Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] List of current Primera División de Fútbol Profesional players[edit]
Not suitable for an encyclopedia. Should be covered by categories. Unusually hard to maintain. Punkmorten (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Honduras 2007-08 Clausura squads[edit]
Squad lists belong on the article of each club, not on a centralized list. Not a good idea. Punkmorten (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Catroots[edit]
This was apparently an unreleased game for the Nintendo 64 (although the article currently states differently). There are very few sources that document this game. It does not appear to be possible to make an article about this subject that satisfies WP:V. --- RockMFR 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Man bash[edit]
I am willing to make any changes which will enable the page to stay up. Please see my input on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peet 12 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I am new to wikipedia, is there nothing i can do/put on the page to make everything said above clear? Willing to moderate.
ok fair enough delete it i tried to but i dont know how to but do delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peet 12 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Chunky Puffs[edit]
It's a breakfast cereal in a TV show. The entire content is: Chunky Puffs are a fictional cereal in the show "Ed, Edd n Eddy" on Cartoon Network. They are shown as a delicious food that most kids in the cul-de-sac want. No assertion of notability has been made. I tried to locate some reliable sources via Google, but there are none. More than a year ago, it was proposed that this article be merged with the main TV show article. To be honest, I don't think it's notable enough to be included in the main article. In my opinion, it should just be deleted. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Simon Ferry[edit]
A youth team player with no evidence of first team appearances for a professional team, and yet another PROD contested by an IP user. Fails per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. I am also nominating the following players for the same reasons described above: Angelo (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The deletion rationale, that this is synthesis writing, combined with the lack of reliable independent sources, outweigh the only given keep rationale of other lists exist." The other comparisons/lists could just as easily be nominated for deletion if necessary. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comparision of desktop search software[edit]
Original proposed deletion was contested, however I feel that the original issues still pertain: "A personal essay in the guise of an article. Because only a limited number of software packages are covered, this ends up being just the author's own personal opinions - unless there is comprehensive coverage based on published sources, this is not suitable content for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps should be userfied? In the author's words (from the article talk page): "It is impossible for a user to make a comprehensive review of dozens of tools... this is a wiki, give time (and that isn't 5 days) for other users to contribute as well. It's no one's personal opinion, this is information available at the author's website and mailing list. The external links are 3rd party information. They do not conform to your "references or sources" (according to your specification of references and sources) because there aren't any! Be pragmatic here. There are no published articles in ACM or IEEE or any other place!" The author is admitting that there are no sources for this and it is unlikely that there will be any. The article is inherently unverifiable and cannot be rewritten from a neutral point of view because there are no external reliable sources to be found. Gwernol 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. ---Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Raoul Courvosier II-class[edit]
The only word for this is cruft. It is so entirely in-universe that it does not even tell us which fictional universe it is set in. Suitable for a specialised Wiki about that particular universe, but not for Wikipedia, per WP:N and WP:WAF. JohnCD (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep all per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Objection to the consideration of a question[edit]
I am also nominating the following articles because they are essentially identical in terms of the issues concerning their existence. The first group was created withing the last five weeks by the the same editor:
The second group is older, created by other editors, but I don't believe any different, fundamentally:
Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Some of the articles above might be appropriate for transwiking to Wiktionary, though I have doubts about others. None of the articles has any external links or sources other than Roberts Rules of Orders; none has more than a dozen or so edits, even the several that are years old. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Lee Daniel Owen[edit]
Non-notable musician. Was going to SD for failure to assert importance, but thought I'd let the community decide. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete ---Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Dolebludger[edit]
Wikipedia is WP:NOT a slang dictionary. No real sources (exactly none of the listed references and external links mention the word). Another in the series of BS articles to sneak some dude's name on Wikipedia using various hoaxes[7]. Weregerbil (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Running List of Euphemisms for Penis in Email Spam[edit]
This is clearly a joke article; the email bit is a good cover but all it is is an excuse to list out a somewhat incomplete list of the many, many names given to the penis. The attempt to use the email spam angle might have been more convincing if there had been any attempt to provide references etc. Ros0709 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep per ArbCom temporary injunction on merging/deleting/anything articles related to TV series characters. Once that has been lifted, feel free to bring it to AfD again if you wish. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew[edit]
List of extremely minor characters from the Tokyo Mew Mew series. Most of those listed appear in only a single episode of the 52 episode anime series. This list is pretty much WP:PLOT and fancruft. Collectonian (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Shu Han (disambiguation)[edit]
Contested prod with no particular reason arguing for keeping the article. Prod reason was: "Unnecessary disambiguation because none of the three entries contain the exact string "Shu Han" and it is unlikely and unreasonable that anyone will use "Shu Han" to look for Han Dynasty, Cheng Han, Former Shu, etc." _dk (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Whelan Bowl Solution[edit]
No notability - for a 'now popular idea', I can't find any other references to it, and it appears to be verging on WP:NOR. However, I'm no expert on NCAA football in any division, so will leave the decision up to other more informed minds :-) CultureDrone (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, with a subsequent recreation as a redirect to Half-Life (series). seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Hazardous Environment Combat Unit[edit]
We've been through this before... no assertion of notability, no tertiary/secondary sources or out of universe info on conception or reception... I had previously merged this after contested prod, but a user reverted my change. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Beyond Dominia[edit]
Entirely speculative article about a possible future film production. No evidence supplied and no assertion of notability. Ros0709 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The Preying Ground[edit]
Article for film with for which there is no evidence is even in production; no 3rd party refs; fails Wikipedia:Notability_(films) Ros0709 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Tokyo Mew Mew Spinoffs[edit]
Two are not spin-offs, only individual chapters from the manga series, two are video games, one is a sequel. All are already covered by Tokyo Mew Mew and do not need a separate NPOV, unsourced listing. Collectonian (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Knob Creek (bourbon)[edit]
advertisement 842U (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yee! (phrase)[edit]
Neologism WP:NEO and self promotion. Prod tag removed by author. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Clear WP:BLP speedy. Three reasons: 1) WP:BLP "one event" - this is about an event not a person. There is no bio here outside of the event. 2) That the event relates to the subject in question is only "claimed" - he may be a wholey innocent victim, being associated with a fairly horrid action. 3) This is a recreation. Any recreation of a BLP deletion needs a consensus that it is justified before recreation. We don't discuss it whilst having the article. If people are keen on this, I suggest they try to write a sourced NPOV article on the event, but not a biography on a (perhaps innocent) otherwise nonentity.--Docg 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motari David[edit]
BLP minefield of individual notable for only one event (and possibly not even that). The article seems to exist here because David Motari has been salted after repeated re-creations; however, I don't see any basis on which to speedy this article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers --JForget 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] List of UEFA Champions League winning managers[edit]
There is already another list on this subject; List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers, which is at FLC, so this article should be deleted as it no longer serves any purpose. NapHit (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. I can't see any consensus to go either way. Both sides make good, policy-based arguments, and cannot seem to come to an agreement. Thus, there is no consensus to change the status quo. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Historical persecution by Christians[edit]AfDs for this article:
Delete A POV fork of the "Persecution of X-religion" articles. The info presented here, i.e. persecution of other religions are present in the respective articles, or if not, should be merged. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. I have redirected to Tucson, Arizona#Education. Knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relvant, verified information. I've left the history intact so that it can be accessed easily to merge. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Satori School[edit]
Does not appear notable. Under the present notability guidelines for schools, the article would need to have significant secondary coverage -- it has none that I could find. Many Google hits for "Satori School" seem to be about other similarly-named schools, a band or album, or Satori. tgies (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Merging can be done by editoral process. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Murcia jewish community[edit]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the vid on youtube is property of a synogogue in madrid Ill get permission Ill improve my sources to include the festival of 3 cultures in murcia which includes this very community —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murcia comunidadjudia (talk • contribs) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Maxim(talk) 14:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Gwynno james[edit]
Google gets 36, which is worrying. Oh, and none of them are relevant anyway. αѕєηιηє t/c 16:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Viral injection[edit]
Contested prod. No reliable published sources are cited to show that this is more than a non-notable neologism. The first few pages of hits for the phrase on Google, Google News and Google Scholar all concern injection of a virus or anti-virus, not a marketing strategy. Delete. EALacey (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Alfred Howard Carter[edit]
Article does not meet WP:BIO requirements. I am tenacious about nominating this, regarding the subject matter - but the article does not provide any assertion of notability - the subject claims to be "one of the greatest pioneers of the Pentecostal Christian faith..." but is not even mentioned in the main article. There are no references, no external links, no statements to back up his notability. Ozgod (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Non Admin Close Dustitalk to me 16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Custodi di quella fede[edit]
Non notable and unremarkable. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Buzz! The Disney Quiz[edit]
I may be wrong, but Google has me believing this is a hoax. αѕєηιηє t/c 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Cochin Flower Show[edit]
This would appear to be non-notable. αѕєηιηє t/c 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The Cochin Flower show is a major event at the Coastal city of Kochi. It has been going on for 26 years. Hence, this, I believe is a notable event of interest to the general public (esp. tourists planning to visit Kochi), and thus, I believe it is very encyclopeadiac (on the lines of the Chelsea Flower Show, Cincinatti Flower Show etc. ) Deepakp7 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Deepak[reply]
The result was : Keep - this is a terrible deletion nomination, little effort has been put into checking whether or not the subject is indeed notable, and the nomination is naturally confusing for those of us who don't understand what N and org are. In future, please ensure you research any article prior to nominating it for deletion, and ensure that links to policy are made in plain English that the majority, if not all users will be able to understand. Nick (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Order of Quetzalcoatl[edit]
Fails org and N. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. I have redirected to Blackbrook, Merseyside; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ashurst Primary School[edit]
This surely comes into the category of a Non notable primary school? Paste (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Maxim(talk) 14:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of police stations in Karachi[edit]
Violates WP:NOT#DIR. Also fails to assert notability Ravichandar 14:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Inimica vis[edit]
An unremarkable event in history. In nearly two years since this page was created there has been not one citation. Fails N. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge; I have redirected to Tyrant (Resident Evil); knowledgeable editors are encouaraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] T-103[edit]
Article should be deleted as it fails WP:N and WP:A. Subject is about a non-notable video game character with no references or real-world information. ShadowJester07 ► Talk 13:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Hone-onna[edit]
Delete Fails WP:RS and notability unestablished. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball keep. For proposed mergers, see WP:MERGE, not AfD, however I note that consensus appears to be against that as well. Non-admin closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] FA Cup 2002-03[edit]
Two sentences regarding results of one year's FA Cup. Merge (if not already in main FA Cup article) and delete. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 12:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 12:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Simon Dobson[edit]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]
The result was redirect to EastEnders. The character's future existence has been verified. However, it has not been shown to be a notable character on its own. If and when this is the case, the article should be unredirected. But at this time, there is nothing to show notability of this individual character. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Jalil Iqbal[edit]
(1) Is a possible future soap character notable. (2) Is the digital spy blog a reliable source? JASpencer (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Luke Sassano[edit]
Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league (the PDL is not professional). Also nominating David Roth (soccer) for exactly the same reason (pre-season friendly games do not count). пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Islam and anti-Christian persecution[edit]
LoveMonkey (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nothing but a POV fork of Persecution of Christians. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LoveMonkey (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LoveMonkey (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. I have redirected to Goblin (Dungeons & Dragons), knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, cited information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Nilbog[edit]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. May deserve a mention at the article on D&D goblins, may not. Not quite sure of the nature of the Necromancer Games source, but I can be almost certain that the 'nilbog in other media' lists unrelated uses of the word. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Nicole martini[edit]
Some random drink that some random tyro made. WP:NFT, the end. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Thessalmonster[edit]
Group of Dungeons & Dragons monster claimed by one character in one setting to have been created by them. A brief mention at the article on liches, under the brief description of the lich Thessal, is probably more than enough. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Issa Makalou[edit]
Contested PROD. Article makes no assertion of notability as the player has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield «T•C» 09:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Star Kidz[edit]
non-notable tv show, probably a hoax nat.utoronto 09:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. I have redirected to Dungeons & Dragons, as that is the only article that I am sure is appropriate to redirect to. Feel free to redirect to a better article, and merge relevant and verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Boalisk[edit]
Dungeons & Dragons monster of questionable notability. First appearance was in a module, the second was a reprint in a supplement that just lists monsters. No evidence of third party coverage. A merge to the module may be appropriate, but that depends on how prevalent the monsters are within the supplement. Probably, a mention in the module article or an outright delete is a better option. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Risk clones[edit]
Delete It's just a collection of links.. Yzmo talk 09:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by User:Rudget under WP:CSD#G7. (Non-admin closure) EJF (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Beck row base housing[edit]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete fails alot, Speedy delete A1, A3, take your pick -Jahnx (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete; will userfy to allow for fixing. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] List of Zen centers in the United States[edit]
Delete The article is written like advertisement. The name of centers are given and their addresses and phone numbers are also given. This is clear form of advertisement. The list is not needed as article, this is what categories are for. So the name of the notable centers should be categorized. A category like Category:Zen centers in the United States can be created for notable centers. At its present form, the article is completely unencyclopedic and advertisement. Wikipedia is not directory. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking against the suitability of this list is the fact that it is confined to a single country, one not central to Zen nor particular important in the history of Zen, and the fact that there is not a list of Zen centers in the world. In the end, wikipedia need to contain content saying something about these centers before it is justified to have a directory like listing heavily populated by external links to websites affiliated with the centers. I'm all for navigational aids, but the content has to be there first. If there is a genuine effort to expand coverage of individual centers, then I would support moving the list into Project or User space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] NWA Australian Championship[edit]
Non notable title with no attempt to establish said notability !! Justa Punk !! 08:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under criterion G7: article failed to assert notability or provide reliable sources. It may also have had advertising/conflict of interest issues. —C.Fred (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Feelthefunk.com[edit]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was conditional keep, if no reliable sources are added within a reasonable amount of time, you may nominate this article for deletion again. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Stewart Alexander (politician)[edit]
Fails BLP, N, V, and appears to be OR. Article has had time to gain notability and proper referencing for living bio. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I meant to add all this today, but you beat me to it. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Related Discussion Do not comment here, this section is for related discussion that was not placed on the AfD page so as to give a fuller picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Vegita (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Alexander (politician) This discussion is from User_talk:Mstuczynski I added OR and V to the nomination because its suspect since the creator has a personal bias toward the rticle in question. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Stewart Alexander (politician) This is from User_talk:SynergeticMaggot While I sympathise with your position on this matter, this article is properly referenced by reliable sources e.g. Socialist Party USA website and is thus neither OR nor unverifiable. Mstuczynski (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I am not sure why I am responding, but the article claims he is the Socialist Party USA V.P. candidate and their website confirms it. I do not know why that is not a reliable source. Mstuczynski (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Mobikade[edit]
Non notable website. Alexa rank 1,527,396. Asoed (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per CSD A7. Rudget (?) 10:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Gearcult[edit]
Non notable website Asoed (talk) 07:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Lo2a[edit]
Non notable website Asoed (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. As for Sellaband, nothing. That just isn't the one being discussed here. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Nvohk[edit]
Non notable website Asoed (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Emmanuel Gospel Center[edit]speedy delete - tagged copyvio. Non-admin closure. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy page on non-notable local religious organization. Noble Sponge (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Peel Street[edit]
There is no reason to believe that the content is worthy of notice. There might be many different Peel streets other than this one. Jpdemers (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Tefosav[edit]
No evidence of RS coverage to indicate they pass either WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC (I think it could fall under either). In the ghits I see forum posts, blogs and download links. I don't see any evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Kumudam Jothidam[edit]
No evidence of RS coverage and ghits in any language don't indicate any notability for this magazine. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 06:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No arguments were made by the keep comments that addressed the notability concerns, when we disregard the SPA. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Frederic H Dustin[edit]
Claims to be the founder of a park in South Korea and to be the longest-lived foreign expatriate in Korea. However, searches on Yahoo turn up very little on him or on the park. Blueboy96 04:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per improved artice, improved sourcing, and withdrawn nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Indosphere[edit]
The result was merge. I've redirected to American Automobile Association. Knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, cited informaiton. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] TripTik[edit]
Listing for AfD after {{prod}} removed with the unsubstantiated assertion that "TripTiks are not non-notable!". The article is unreferenced, and doesn't establish the notability of this commercial service (or is it a product?). Mikeblas (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and Redirect to 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. I leave it more involved editors as so how best include the material (also, it's a sculpture, not a mural). Black Kite 18:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Newborn Mural[edit]
Non-notable and poorly developed article. Qualifies under WP:NOT#NEWS, as Wikipedia is not news. Was previously tagged with {{prod}}, but tag was removed with no changes to the article and no constructive discussion. Grsz 11 03:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as unsourced original research. Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Silent protagonist[edit]
This article survived an AfD in September 2007. At the time, the main complaint was that it had no sources, and appeared to be original research. 18 months later, this is still true: there is not a single secondary source in the article, and it is composed entirely of original research. Essentially, the article consists of nothing more than an extended list of examples of things -- mostly videogames -- that Wikipedia editors believe contain "silent protagonists." This is original research in the extreme. The term "silent protagonist" does come up in searches of scholarly literature (this came up in the last AfD), but is generally being used descriptively, not as a term of art. In other words, there's no apparent connection between the uses cited in the previous AfD and the topic of this aticle ("My favorite videogames that have characters without dialogue"). This article has had more than enough time for some reliable source to have been found. None have been forthcoming. None will be forthcoming. We should delete this as original research. Nandesuka (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sometimes, people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it, but the deletion is very extreme solution. I think that "silent protagonist is video game object" is not problem. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Donbas secessionism[edit]
The article is pure WP:OR. Virtually no text, just the maps, no sources to support the topic per WP:SOURCE and WP:V. The lonely, non-academic, Radio Free Europe source from 2004 (!) does not even mention secessionism as a phenomenon. Hillock65 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Carnivorous alga[edit]
The article Carnivorous alga was moved to Predatory dinoflagellate, and when Tameeria, creator of the article, contested the move, there was a vote, in which it was decided that the article should remain at Predatory dinoflagellate. However, Tameeria has recently recreated the old page Carnivorous alga with nearly the same content in what I believe to be an effort to circumvent the page-move, which I would call content forking. Therefore, given the consensus established in the above mentioned discussion, it is self-evident that Carnivorous alga is a superfluous article conceived under questionable circumstances, warranting deletion. ♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keep comments did not address the issues of the article, which were based on policy and guideline. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Student Association of Missouri[edit]
This is a defunct group of 12 delegates from assorted Missouri colleges to lobby Missouri government. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. Plenty of WP:Original Research. Would merge, but nothing to merge it to. RedShiftPA (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, G3 as an obvious hoax, per the author's admission that he made the "poster" for the movie. Blueboy96 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Alvin and the Chipmunks 2[edit]
made up film, the poster is actually a poster for the first film which someone has drawn "2" on see here. Fredrick day (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Rubisco (band)[edit]
Possibly Fails notabiltity CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Thottbot[edit]AfDs for this article:
This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and has been put up for deletion several times as no proof of notability has been presented or added to the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Malone House[edit]
Tried to CSD this but removed because hey, let's all waste our time with a residence hall. Entirely non-notable residence hall. delete. Fredrick day (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, no prejudice against proposing a merger to a list, but that's for the talkpages. No consensus to delete at this point. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode)[edit]
Unnotable episode of Xena: Warrior Princess that fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT. As per the arbcom injunction, AfD can proceed normally, but must wait for any actual deletion/merge/redirect (if that is the final choice) to be done after the injunction is lifted. Collectonian (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Young Scientists Online Journal[edit]
non-notable school magazine supported by charitable funding. great idea but just not notable (and sources presented are not RS or notable). Fredrick day (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] List of characters in Golden Sun[edit]
This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and covers material already in the two Golden Sun game articles. This material is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. It has been tagged for notability since November, and no attempt to establish any has been made, most likely because it doesn't have any. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Look What You Made Me[edit]
Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and only one (poor) reference. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No secondary sources, and both the articles and the keep votes note that little is known about it. We wouldn't have a separate article about The Briefcase in Pulp Fiction; discussion of the agency should exist in the article relevant to it, rather than having a separate article that says "We don't know much about it." If substantial, reliable secondary sources devote coverage to the Time Agency itself in the future, the article can be recreated at that time. Nandesuka (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Time Agency[edit]
Non notable part of TV show, with little meaningful content StuartDD contributions 10:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. Tikiwont (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Disco Heaven 02.02[edit]
An apparently non-notable compilation album. There is no information about the album, the article is solely a track listing. A Google search in an effort to add substance resulted in download links, forums and product listings. No RS coverage from which to expand this track listing or determine notability. I know albums of notable artists are notable, but compilation albums on which they have one or two songs? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beach House 04.02 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) no RS coverage from which to expand the track listing TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Mohammad Mansha Qazi[edit]
This was originally speedied under non-notable bio., but upon recreation, I'm listing it for AfD. Non-notable journalist/speaker. Maybe speedied again under no consequence. seicer | talk | contribs 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Live at the Crystal Palace[edit]
Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. Is it verifiable that they recorded a live show at the Crystal Palace and intended to, at least at one point in time, to release it? Yes. Is any notability shown? No. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] OCEAN Magazine[edit]
Very hard to tell if this magazine is notable or not, a Google news search links to various magazines with ocean in the title. Most of the references are primary, the secondary ones seem minor and don't really amount to significant coverage. Polly (Parrot) 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Closed per consensus to delete. Note: General Electric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article treats the subject more neutrally and has better references. — Athaenara ✉ 06:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] GE Ecomagination[edit]
This reads like an advertisement for the campaign, and I think it might be copied directly off the ecomagination site. At the very least, this should be marked as not npov Codyrank (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
- ^ Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof.
- ^ However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources.
- ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
- ^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has recieved by the world at large.
- ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
- ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
- ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.