Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 18
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4 by Orlady at 05:40, 18 August 2009. (NAC) Greg Tyler (t • c) 15:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Generation we[edit]AfDs for this article:
Generation "We..." was previously nominated and deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation "We...". The User:Bmswan simply took one of the redirect pages and recreated the page at Generation we. Here is the history of that edit. Nasa-verve (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete As per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Dana Blankenhorn[edit]AfDs for this article:
Unclear claims of notability, no references to assert it either. Does not meet wp:creative Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm the original author of this article. I started to clean this article up but, on further reflection, it seems that the are, in fact, verifiability issues. Most of the available sources appear to be profiles and bios that Blankenhorn himself likely wrote. Let's go ahead and delete it. Szarka (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Four Norsemen of the Apocalypse[edit]
Search results turn up no significant coverage, thus failing it for WP:GNG. Giants27 (c|s) 23:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Banshee (band)[edit]
Not notable. Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slovichon (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete As per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mike Manning[edit]AfDs for this article:
This page has apparently been previously deleted, judging from the archived discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Manning. Artist and band (which has no Wikipedia page so far) seems non-notable. No significant coverage for either singer or band. Bands normally have a page before the singer. Scanlan (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. A cleanup is needed here. Tone 19:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Reason (software)[edit]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article is loaded with self links and adverts. This seems more aimed to selling the product than any other factor. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.
Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Tich Saund[edit]
Preliminary Google searches for both the nickname and full name reveal nothing from any possibly reliable sources about this actor, and Google news, books, and scholar searches come up equally empty. lifebaka++ 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry you feel you need to follow every rule in the book. So well done you win, congratulations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajindersaund (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE KEEP IT PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajindersaund (talk • contribs) 09:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect now that wikipedia consists of a very small, close-nit, contributory group of people that gang-up on perfectly valid articles and perfectly valid contributions. This word DELETE or KEEP or SUPERKEEP, I mean come on????? who thought of that lame idea??? Does it really matter that every point within the "notability" bracket isn't quite justified. He is of interest to us and shouldn't be picked on because his fame isn't overly extensive or he hasn't reached every social website. I could pick, let me see..... "millions and millions" of articles that mean absolutely nothing to me and will be of no interest to myself, my friends or my family. This article is a simple point of reference, and should be seen as that. A single solitary page in a vast array of information. As he produces more work his article will obviously grow as the contributor pointed out earlier. But as of now I feel Tich has worked hard enough in his career so far to be worthy of his own first seed page. That's my opinion and I'm sure you'll figure out some ridiculous reason not to have it amongst your little old school gang, you contributors that probably got picked on at school and feel it's their right to now punish the world of internet researchers by acting on old age censorship. And God help me if any of your returns imply that I'm being sarcastic or picking on the professional process wikipedia follows. Let it be known I value this website but it's so obvious we should be more flexible and compromising in our approach to reunite humanity and it's scholars. LET IT STAY!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotelhappy (talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC) — Hotelhappy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Canadian Ivy League[edit]AfDs for this article:
The article is a clear demonstration of neologisms, in clear contradiction to WP:NEO. Although the article contains citations, only one citation includes use of the term ‘Canadian Ivy League’. For this reason I believe the article fails to demonstrate that the term is widely used or in line with WP:NOTABILITY. I am certain there is agreement that there is in fact no Canadian Ivy League. No formal or informal academic union or athletic conference exists by such a term. Rather the term is only used coequally to denote an often changing informal list of top-ranked Canadian universities. The Old Four and Group of Thirteen already cover this topic sufficiently as such I support deletion of Canadian Ivy League. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Since we have no clear merge target and there is not a consensus to keep the article Im defaulting to delete but can undelete and merge if a target can be suggested Spartaz Humbug! 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Linux Hybrid Graphics[edit]
While Hybrid Graphics may be a notable topic apart from the chipsets that currently support it, I don't think this article can go anywhere besides continuing to list what systems support it. As the comment on talk says, WP is NOT for software project support... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was Delete As per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Alternative names for the United Kingdom[edit]
The content of this article substantially overlaps with Terminology of the British Isles and offers nothing significantly new. The article should be deleted as redundant to an already-existing, much better article. A redirect may be considered but I don't advise it. Chutznik (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The XX[edit]The result was Nomination withdrawn, notability established. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem to see many WP:RS about this band, and fails WP:BAND TheWeakWilled 17:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The people who want to delete 'The xx' page = fucking idiots (ooh one is a metalfag no wonder... lulz.). xx <3 theyre noteable, album has been reviewed highly in many major publications NME, broadsheets, clashmusic, rocksound, artrocker etc... so fuck you. couldnt find any reliable sources lulz. you obviously looked really hard. probably got distracted by the urge to punch pillows while listening to some pathetic screaming.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.114.145 (talk • contribs)
NOTE TO ALL Ok, I take this off. Please close it. I nominated the band because in my google results (the top 30 results) had about 2 WP:RS that were not trivial. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, and I sure as heck look stupid now, but do understand that google.com results are vastly different than google.co.uk results. And even depending on browser and location, they are still different. TheWeakWilled 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Brian Kerr (photographer)[edit]
Non notable photographer. The only link I can find to a notable source is to the use of his photography as illustrations in a Government publication. Other links all seem to be to blogs, sales, a PR company he uses and so forth. Jenafalt (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Empire Square Tower[edit]
Notability of this cancelled project is not established. A search on Google News reveals an article in The Australian (15 May 2008) about the cancellation but this on its own does not constitute "substantial coverage" as intended by WP:N. As the project was cancelled, there is no chance of further sources to demonstrate notability, the project was not unique for any particular reason or the centre of a political storm. Ash (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Adreenalize[edit]
Nonnotable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Only references are to general music databases online, which do not show notability. Chutznik (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Riverside Centre 2[edit]
Notability not addressed due to a lack of non-speculative sources. There are no articles on Google News that are not speculative and sourced by press releases by GPT. This article fails WP:CRYSTAL as there is no evidence of a firm commitment to any such development. Ash (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Len Rosenthal[edit]
Non notable administrator, fails WP:BIO, initially Prodded but immediately removed by author that appears to have a COI. Paste Let’s have a chat. 16:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete As per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jamie Hatch[edit]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Topher Glenn[edit]
Subject already deleted once under a different name (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Christopher Glenn. Still no signs of the notability we require for an article in Wikipedia. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedily deleted (non-admin closure); nope, no actual claim of notability even resembling anything at WP:BIO found at all. Definitely an {{A7}}. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jacob Adam (1997)[edit]
Non-notable and self-promotion Spiderone (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Falling Into Difference[edit]
Claims of notability ("profound impact on the Bristol music scene"; "widespread praise within the media") not verified. Google news search shows no hits for this band. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep - nomination was withdrawn by the nominator, and there was no !votes either way. This was a non-admin closure. GiantSnowman 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jacob Adam (Austrian Copper Etcher)[edit]
|
The result was keep. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wrong way driving[edit]
Dictionary definition, see WP:NOT WuhWuzDat 15:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yumi Miyake[edit]
I declined the speedy deletion nomination (CSD G3) so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The City Never Sleeps[edit]
Unnotable band. Conflict of interest issues, the articles creator, User:Topherglenn, has also given us the articles John Christopher Glenn which was deleted here and Topher Glenn which I put up for a speedy deletion. Neither the person nor the band are notable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep. This was a long debate and took me some time to parse it all. Based on the content of the arguements here, I find that the preponderance of the "Delete" concerns can be dealt with by methods other than deletion, such as proper sourcing and trimming of the list, or possibly renaming the article. Since deletion is not a cleanup method, and there are also a number of valid, policy-based keep reasons as well, I am closing this as a consensus keep.Jayron32 18:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of honorific titles in popular music[edit]AfDs for this article:
This is in fact the fourth nomination for this page. The first was closed as no consensus, on the grounds that "it has been argued that the information here is sourced." The second was closed as keep, largely because the nomination (which was made 9 days after the first one) was withdrawn. The third nomination, in October 2008, was speedy kept, again on the grounds that the article is sourced. It has become painfully clear, however, that this article can never be a properly sourced, neutral article. The article's talk page shows multiple examples of poor sourcing and references being used to support "titles" that clearly do not do so. To take just one peformer, among other things Michael Jackson was listed as the "Biggest Pop Star of the '80s," the "God of Music," and the "God of Pop," on the basis of a blog entry beginning "Michael Jackson was unquestionably the biggest pop star of the '80s"; a remark by Wyclef Jean that Jackson was "his music god"; and the title of an article reading "How Michael Jackson became a Pop God," respectively. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that these are not actually "honorific titles," but rather nicknames; that the lead sets out criteria for inclusion which are routinely ignored by editors with an axe to grind; and that factual accuracy is an ongoing problem for the article. Ultimately, this type of information (for example, that Elvis was known as The King, and that Michael Jackson was known as the King of Pop) might belong in the articles of the various subjects, but this list is an unredeemable mess of POV and factual inaccuracy that requires far too much interpretation on the part of Wikipedia editors as to what constitutes being "widely known" by a particular title or nickname. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems we have two issues here, both of which are problematical, but neither incapable of resolution. The first is notability of the topic itself. When, about 70 years ago, some music journalist dubbed Benny Goodman "The King of Swing", nobody thought to say "there's no such thing". OK, it's arguably a bit of hype, but that's nothing new in the the music industry. I'll remind you that Johann Strauss is adequately sourced as "The Waltz King" as is John Philip Sousa as "The March King"; both of these forms of music qualify as "popular" in its senses of "not classical" and "enjoyed by the masses". Popular music has been around as long as has music itself, and so have journalistic descriptions of it- which is perhaps the problem, and leads me to the second issue, that of reliable sourcing. I think we should leave record company hype out of it, as should we eschew self-published claims, and those of minor sources whose authority on these topics is debatable. If you look at List of events named massacres, the criteria for inclusion are set out quite clearly as to avoid dispute. In the current case, we cannot always rely on inexperienced editors to understand notability or verifiability, and that has been a major problem with this article - editors adding or removing content according to personal preferences. The solution to both issues is to insist on reliable sources- but some genres of music have their specialist publications which are regarded as reliable in their own scope, but not otherwise. A cull of poorly-sourced entries would be a good start, but it seems plain that this list is as valid as many others; resistance to fancruft would be appreciated, but I don't see any of those supporting deletion having actually weighed in to maintain what is obviously a difficult article. Perhaps, we should delete Barack Obama on the basis that it's "too difficult to maintain". As for Sabrebd's above comments, some "list" articles arise from commonality that is not necessarily spelt out in one source, and it is not original research to create such articles, when the title sets out what the list comprises. After that, it's an issue of inclusion/non-inclusion, and that depends on tight specification of the inclusion criteria. Rodhullandemu 23:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When, about 70 years ago, some music journalist dubbed Benny Goodman "The King of Swing", nobody thought to say "there's no such thing". OK, it's arguably a bit of hype, but that's nothing new in the the music industry.
I'll remind you that Johann Strauss is adequately sourced as "The Waltz King" as is John Philip Sousa as "The March King"; both of these forms of music qualify as "popular" in its senses of "not classical" and "enjoyed by the masses".
Popular music has been around as long as has music itself, and so have journalistic descriptions of it- which is perhaps the problem, and leads me to the second issue, that of reliable sourcing. I think we should leave record company hype out of it, as should we eschew self-published claims, and those of minor sources whose authority on these topics is debatable.
"....In the current case, we cannot always rely on inexperienced editors to understand notability or verifiability, and that has been a major problem with this article - editors adding or removing content according to personal preferences."
...insist on reliable sources- but some genres of music have their specialist publications which are regarded as reliable in their own scope, but not otherwise.
A cull of poorly-sourced entries would be a good start, but it seems plain that this list is as valid as many others; resistance to fancruft would be appreciated, but I don't see any of those supporting deletion having actually weighed in to maintain what is obviously a difficult article.
As for Sabrebd's above comments, some "list" articles arise from commonality that is not necessarily spelt out in one source, and it is not original research to create such articles, when the title sets out what the list comprises. After that, it's an issue of inclusion/non-inclusion, and that depends on tight specification of the inclusion criteria.
Comment, this nomination clearly does not meet the criteria for WP:SK. There is no edit war in the article and given the issues raised on the talk page and here, it clearly is not vandalism. The discussion has been actively going for ten days and has been relisted, and now you call for speedy keep? I see little point in simply restating the same arguments, which have been reasonably (even if you do not agree with them) refuted by a number of editors, indicating a valid debate. You now point to the possibility of renaming, which has been raised before, but largely ignored in these discussions. I believe this is the most likely possibility of gaining some kind of consensus (in fact it is the only one raised here so far), but it is necessary to take on board the issues I pointed to when this was first raised by EEIMV, if you want to convince many of those arguing for deletion to adopt this solution. To save time I will repeat them:
Since this offers the possibility of consensus it would be helpful to address these issues directly so that we can all try to take the debate forward.--Sabrebd (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So in summary we have the following proposals (that do not involve simply delete or keep - on which, obviously, editors can still give their opinions):
To state the obvious, this is not a 2 or 3 way debate and it would be helpful if other editors on both sides were to join in.--Sabrebd (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: in the interest of acheiving some kind of consensus I've left neutral requests for more input on this discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard and the Content noticeboard.Exploding Boy (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)</small.> [reply]
|
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Meade Ministries[edit]
The article is a stub and has unresolved issues dating back several months, including lack of references, no explanation of notability and no context. TechBear (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ahmed Ben Sawed[edit]
I can't seem to find out much about this person but from what the article says he seems to be non-notable. Firstly the Libyan Premier League isn't professional, he doesn't seem to be a Libya international and he hasn't coached at a professional level. Spiderone (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sabularse[edit]
Non-notable family, fails WP:GNG. It might also be original research. This article is a recreation of a previously deleted material via PROD. Declined WP:CSD G4. Bluemask (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Santa vs satan[edit]
This book exists but fails WP:Notability (books). Ash (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Already deleted, just closing. Tone 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Chaim grosz[edit]
This is a biographical page that fails notability for a lack of sources. There are no Google News, Google Books or Google Scholar matches. The only web matches appear to be blogs or user comments from "Chaim Grosz". With a lack of sources the factual content may be true or an elaborate hoax, there is no way to judge. Note that this article was created by Cgrosz (talk · contribs) who may be the same person. Ash (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, preferably speedy delete. The "article" is a personal reflection, not an encyclopedia article. There are numerous reasons one could give for deleting it: no citations, original research, no independent coverage found on searching..., but it is so obvious that it is not necessary to go into detailed justification. In my opinion it should be speedily deleted as an article about a person which does not indicate why the person is significant: there are many people who have survived in similar circumstances, and this one is not, as far as the article indicates, any more notable than any other: the only difference is that this one has chosen to write some musings on his feelings about his survival. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] John A. Smolin[edit]
Notability not established against WP:PROF. A number of papers are listed in Google Scholar with Smolin contributing; none of these establishes notability. The Quantiki article does not establish that inventing the phrase mentioned makes "significant impact" in the field of Physics as would be needed to meet WP:PROF. Ash (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Prithvi Raj Bali[edit]
A junior army officer who won the Military Cross. Admirable, but very common during the world wars and certainly not notable enough for an article. Despite the article's assertion, many hundreds, if not thousands, of medical officers have been awarded the MC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 05:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] John Devae[edit]
Non-notable, fails WP:ATHLETE. Has not competed at the top professional level of the sport in his country, or on another notable team. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] StarWind Software[edit]
Subject that it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Although it fails WP:COMPANY and WP:N. It doesn't meet the guidelines and it is a minor software technology as not as Windows and Apple. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 12:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Victoria School. Did the redirect, merge away Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Victoria School Hockey[edit]
Contested merge, A secondary school hockey club, not clear how this might meet notability guidelines. Could be merged into a couple paragraphs into Victoria School. Lacks 3rd party references. RadioFan (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Its still at #62 sdo its clearly not charted to a high enough level to overcome the clear consensus Spartaz Humbug! 05:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Coming Up Easy[edit]
Does not meet the notability criteria listed in WP:NSONGS; no evidence given that it has charted on a national music chart or anything else. Tagged for prod, prod contested (incorrectly, but still contested), so taking here. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Why is the article up for deletion. It while surley chart on sunday. --Florenceandthemachinedoohaa (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mark E (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consensus is to delete, but the song has just charted (albeit lowly). Further analyses solicited. Skomorokh 12:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Userfy. Moved to User:Mikolardos/CrashRpt (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] CrashRpt[edit]
Non-notable software, no third-party sources offer significant coverage of a subject Grebenkov. (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOT DELETE Guys, are you crasy? There are a lot of articles about software libaries. This article had a lot of references, but Mr. Gerebenkov has deleted them. I had to undo. Mr. Grebenkov, please do not tuch this article by your dirty hands. Please. Wikipeia sucks because of maniacs like you. Mikolardos (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Mikolardos[reply] Ok, can it be improved by me to be not deleted? What should I do to improve it? More references or what? Mikolardos (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Mikolardos[reply]
1. I agree, there are no public references to CrashRpt from mainstream projects. If this is the main argument, I agree you should delete CrashRpt. But I beleive that CrashRpt is used by _many_ small and not very small commercial software projects for Windows. For example, Miranda may use CrashRpt (but I'm not sure 100%). Everyone who doesn't like Mircorosft's default crash reporting system uses CrashRpt, because there were no free alternatives. Now of course Google and Mozilla develop their own open source crash reporting system Breakpad, which is an analog of CrashRpt. 2. If you ever wrote an article in any journal, you should know that when you create something new, you reference the previous work, analogous works and other third-party stuff that you used in your work in the References section. It is common thing. I don't know why you guys in Wikipedia do not like references to non-Wikipedia stuff. 3. Mr. Grebenkov already removed my article CrashRpt from russian section of Wikipedia. I do not like guys that remove articles without agreement in discussion (as your rules say). Ok, improve the Wikipedia, but before removing the article concensus is needed. There were no concensus in the discussion. And russian Wikipedia contains very little number of articles comparing to other languages. Removing==Improving? Mikolardos (talk)Mikolardos —Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Oculotect[edit]
Fails WP:ORG for notability. This is a brand name rather than a generic product type (such as eye drop). This brand name is owned by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. The only mentions in Google News or LexisNexis are when Novartis took this product over from Ciba Vision or in financial earnings statements that do not establish the notability of this product. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of every branded medication sold worldwide. Ash (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Cara Weinstein Rosenthal[edit]
Contested PROD. Speedy declined by admin two times, it is thoroughly non-notable rabbi and fails WP:BIO. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Already deleted, just closing. Tone 15:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Gurus trilogy[edit]
Fails WP:BAND for notability. The only mentions in Google News are for two event listings rather than articles that establish notability. Ash (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirected to main article by the original author per suggestions here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Leisure in Póvoa de Varzim[edit]
Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL. This page is a travel guide. Póvoa de Varzim exists and this page should be deleted with a redirect to that page which coveys the factual description of the same area. Ash (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against its deletion or redirect though because it is an article that now doesnt makes sence with the current layout of the main article, that now is organized like this: 4 Culture and contemporary life * 4.1 Entertainment and performing arts * 4.2 Museums * 4.3 Literature * 4.4 Cuisine * 4.5 Sports * 4.6 Media * 4.7 Festivals Beaches are now on 3 Cityscape * 3.1 Beaches and parks * 3.2 Countryside so. Go for it. No problems or issues, no info will be lost.-Pedro (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] French Quarter Tower 1[edit]
Speculative and non-notable project that fails WP:ORG. The "French Quarter Tower 1" project has no matches in Google News or LexisNexis. With an absence of sources this project seems speculative and fails WP:CRYSTAL. Most website references are circular refs back to this same article. Where articles do exist (for example The Courier Mail, 2007) these are speculative based on the developer's press releases. There is apparently no firm commitment on the project that can be found in any available source. Ash (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Battery and battery charger[edit]
There are already articles on battery and battery charger. This one serves no purpose, not even as a redirect. It also looks suspiciously like a copy-and-paste job. An article of the same name has previously been PRODed to deletion. Favonian (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep, timsdad (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Melbourne Heart Football Club[edit]
Not officially an A-League club, fails WP:N per WP:CRYSTAL. The only source given only states that the current bidders will attempt to sign a player if the team is ever incepted into the league. See the discussion at the Wikiproject. timsdad (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see timsdad, i told you it WAS in the herald sun thank you mattinbgn for finding this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm859 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend continuing this discussion here as I'm no longer interested in deleting the article. Thanks, timsdad (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Alcoholic drinks in Britain[edit]
Prod was supported, but then declined because the article had been around since June 2006. The article hasn't developed much in that time, and has been tagged for improvement since Jan 2007 with no success. My doubt about the article, and perhaps the reason for its lack of growth, is that it's more of a category than an article. The matters that it wishes to discuss - Beer and Wine - already have articles, so this - at best - would be a disamb page, and - at worse - would mirror material from the other articles and create problems for editors who would either have to then update two articles simultaneously, or neglect one or the other so the articles start to diverge and create problems for the reader. SilkTork *YES! 08:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. deleteing because its unsourced despite efforts to do so Spartaz Humbug! 19:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kosvinsky Mountain[edit]
Only a single source, no grounds for notability demonstrated. — Dædαlus Contribs 07:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to RuneScape. did the redirect, merge away Spartaz Humbug! 19:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] RuneScape: Betrayal at Falador[edit]
An article with a single source. It also fails to meet notability guideline for books. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Chessie Moore[edit]AfDs for this article:
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO, and has only received trivial coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy deleted this as vandalism. If anything comes up to show otherwise it can be re-created. Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC).[reply] Alfa-Tsentr[edit]
No evidence that Alfa-Tsentr exists; it may in fact be made up for an alternate reality game. rspεεr (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete and redirect to RuneScape. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Zamorak[edit]
An non-notable article about a fictional character from the video game RuneScape. No sources listed; seems like an article for the RuneScape Wiki rather than the English Wikipedia. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jun Fukuyama[edit]
DELETE. Yes, there are tons of credits. No, we are not IMDb. If you want a biographical article on Wikipedia we need to see some substantial third party coverage about the person from a reliable publication. JBsupreme (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More stuff: After some in-depth recon mission, i found that Jun Fukuyama was on the cover of the Japanese Voice NewType issue #28, October 2008. NewType Amazon.co.jp another seller. Anyone wanting a Jun Fukuyama's B5 format poster? A good find for animanga project for seyiu coverage some past issue. It's was tricky but fun. --KrebMarkt 10:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. non-english speaking sources area cceptable but none of the sources provided in Russian cut the mustard. I rechecked them myself and the only possibly plausible one was a collection of poetry so not secondary sourcing Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Igor Sorin[edit]
Article is in broken English and almost all references, if that's what they are, are in Russian. Cheers, Mazeau (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] PowerNap (recording)[edit]
Article is an advertisement in nature and contains no credible information SaguratuS (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. I think this is deletable under A1 and G12 GedUK 11:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Open Encyclopedia[edit]
Not sure what to make of this. Certainly it would need to be reworked; it is quite short of context. I can't tell if the idea would be encyclopedic or not if it were properly presented. Is this a concept that has been mentioned elsewhere? If not, I thought it perhaps should be deleted. (I do hate to delete an article with this auspicious-sounding name, though. What does that say about our project?) Rigadoun (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Snowball KEEP (NAC). WWGB (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Supermarine Aircraft[edit]
TeamQuaternion (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect. (non-admin closure) BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 03:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Krysta Cameron[edit]
The article is little more than a sentence, a photograph, and an infobox. It lacks the in-depth nature of other articles and does not reference any sources at all. Also, she fails to meet wikipedia guidelines, since Iwrestledabearonce is the only musical endeavor she is in participation with. Maybe this page could be redirected to the Iwrestledabearonce page. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 03:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Christian figures of speech[edit]
Other lists with much better defined topics, standard wikilinks in religious articles, and normal categories can and do serve the purpose of this glossary list. They do so without entering dictionary territory or the failings of such a broad and ill-defined article scope. Glossary entries are suited for dictionary projects, not this project. Content of this type is explicitly inappropriate for Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide." Export any useful content to Wiktionary. --Vassyana (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Vassyana (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Glossary of Jewish terms[edit]AfDs for this article:
Other lists with much better defined topics, standard wikilinks in religious articles, and normal categories can and do serve the purpose of this glossary list. They do so without entering dictionary territory or the failings of such a broad and ill-defined article scope. Glossary entries are suited for dictionary projects, not this project. Content of this type is explicitly inappropriate for Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide." Export any useful content to Wiktionary. Vassyana (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Glossary of Christian terms[edit]AfDs for this article:
Other lists with much better defined topics, standard wikilinks in religious articles, and normal categories can and do serve the purpose of this glossary list. They do so without entering dictionary territory or the failings of such a broad and ill-defined article scope. Glossary entries are suited for dictionary projects, not this project. Content of this type is explicitly inappropriate for Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide." Export any useful content to Wiktionary. Vassyana (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Quantum battery[edit]
Can't find any information on this apart from the provided primary source, no reliable secondary sources to satisfy notability. Sounds like a cool product but I'm not sure it's ready for a Wikipedia article. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=%22virtual+state%22+site%3Aedu+pumping&aq=f&aqi=&fp=35e5f905b5e4329b fwiw. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] TomatoCart[edit]
The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this software. The creator has a conflict of interest and said that he/she removed the prod because he/she wants the software too get known. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. 2 relists and 17 days is long enough. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation for a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Verbal Arts Centre[edit]
Non-notable. This organization has been marked as an advert and needing citations for over 2 years with no sign of addressing these problems. No reliable sources have been added so the basic facts quoted are not verified and may well be out of date. Ash (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jean-Yves Leclerc[edit]
Non-notable mini-bio page likely created for commercial reasons. Non-notable template has been on the page for 2 months with no improvement in sourcing or rationale for inclusion. Ash (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. 18 days and 2 relists is long enough. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] MOCADI[edit]
Non-notable software. (Now neutral per TimothyRias, still think the discussion should go on however) Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ken Spears Construction[edit]
non-notable per WP:COMPANY, references unreliable per WP:RS Per Ardua (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Lancaster, Pennsylvania#Surveillance. done the redirect so merge away Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Lancaster Community Safety Coalition[edit]
I deleted this article as an uncontested PROD. The article was then undeleted by another administrator about 15 minutes later, so this is mostly a procedural nomination. I did not tag the article originally, just for clarification. I am going this route (contesting the article's undeletion, I guess) because I usually do a bit more digging than normal before deleting old articles via PROD, and I arrived at the conclusions I list below. I do not think this organization meets the general notability guidelines, as it is not the subject of significant third-party coverage. A Google News archive search returns seven pages of results, but nearly all are links to services which archive local (to Lancaster) newspapers' stories. The other sources are mainly writing about the fact that the city is under nearly total camera surveillance, which is (was?) unusual in the United States. Some write about crimes/accidents that were caught on the cameras. They do not write about organization itself, but mention it largely in passing as the body that oversees the cameras' operation. J.delanoygabsadds 14:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems borderline buit does seem to be notable through 3rd party coverage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete should be merged into Lancaster, Pennsylvania's article, where it will get far more readers than if its own obscure article. Considering the fact that there are multiple Lancasters in the world, as well, this regional-centric article could serve to confuse readers.Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Abductive. Phaffo (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jude Austin[edit]
Non-notable college football/soccer player. Wizardman 01:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Davis Granados[edit]
|
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Alan J. Hawkins[edit]
Does not meet notability standard for academics. Barely sourced; one footnote for The Deseret News only gives a date (there should be an online link to this). Google returns only directory-style listings. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that Hawkins meets both criteria one and criteria 7 for inclusion of academics. Since my search for Alan J. Hawkins generated over 2.9 million hits in google (although I am not sure how many relate to this Alan J. Hawkins), I find your dismissing of information on him in google so quickly disturbing. You have also apparently avoided using google scholar, where you will find a large number of papers and books by Hawkins. Beyond this, the Deseret News article I reference only refers to him as Alan Hawkins, which is another listing that I have not even started to explore.Johnpacklambert (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now placed a reference to a day when the Los Angeles Times included a quote from Hawkins. This is to at least began to show he has been widely referenced as an expert on his field of study. The Los Angeles Times is clearly not a case of a local paper referencing him, since he has never even lived in California.Johnpacklambert (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have dug up a totally new issue. Hawkins was an expert witness in Varnum v. Brien, which I have now mentioned at the appropriate points in the text. Being an expert witness in such a trial may not inpedendently establish notability, but I think it adds to the argument that he is viewed as an expert on this issue by those outside academia. If this were the only case of such it might be weak, but coupled with the Time reference, and newspapers in three other states, I think the case is becoming strong.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] In their opening publication Healthymarriageinfo.org states "Highly-regarded academics in these fields were selected to author this inaugural project: Paul Amato, Ph.D., Frank Fincham, Ph.D., Alan Hawkins, Ph.D." they continue but I stopped there. They have called Alan Hawkins highly regarded in his field. I guess this is still just one sources opinion, but the evidence is building that Hawkins is a significant academic.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Well duh —Preceding unsigned comment added by TenPoundHammer (talk • contribs) Heiress Records[edit]
Vanity label that Paris Hilton made for just one album. The label went under and had no other releases. What little information there is about this label is already mentioned sufficiently in her album and personal articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but the discussion has enough participation and has been open long enough for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Reginald Capell, 9th Earl of Essex[edit]
Absolutely no assertion of notability. I may be unfamiliar with the consensus around articles about British peers, but there are an awful lot of them and they did exactly zero to get their titles. Nothing substantive is in this article other than the fact that he had this title. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--69.136.101.246 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator. Per additional sources mentioned and needed for this article. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Vitali Pushkar[edit]
Person who fails WP:ATHLETE, although it is not notable by Google search. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] House of Pain (Apparel)[edit]
CSD A7 removed by user whose last edit was over a year ago. I'm not seeing the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" required by WP:CORP. --aktsu (t / c) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Fritzl case. Spartaz Humbug! 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Crimes of Josef Fritzl[edit]
Non notable book per WP:NB. Only source given so far is the publisher's press release. Article creator declined the prod.-- Syrthiss (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bill Garcia[edit]
Unnotable local/regional radio personality. Fails WP:BIO and primarily appears to be an autobiographical piece written by Garcia himself or a relative/friend/associate from the editing history. Prod removed by SPA without reason and whose name is similar to article subject. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fermoy GAA[edit]
Sport association not at the national level Falcon8765 (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to List_of_Law_&_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit_characters#Dani_Beck. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Dani Beck[edit]
|
The result was no consensus. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation for a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] DDRMAX Dance Dance Revolution 6thMix[edit]
Not notable - there don't seem to be significant sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy Delete under R2. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Vinyl Life[edit]
Non-notable per WP:BAND, speedy deletion removed by anonymous WP:SPA, references unreliable per WP:RS Per Ardua (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fieldman Robinson[edit]
WP:AUTOBIO, non-notable actor per WP:ENT, no significant coverage from reliable sources per WP:RS, speedy removed by anonymous WP:SPA Per Ardua (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Phpadadmin[edit]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Chris 'Grizzly' Caine[edit]AfDs for this article:
Contested proposed deletion. I found no sources suggesting notability for this person. MickMacNee (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Axios Systems[edit]
Corporation with little or no notability WuhWuzDat 18:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The page is not finished. The company has huge notability in this sector. Axios won Software Company of the Year for 3 years running in 2005, 2006 and 2007. It is the leading provider of Help Desk Management Software. I think that it is important to have a place in Wikipedia. Harryswinton (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Can this nomination be removed now? Harryswinton (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Francisco Tenório Cerqueira Júnior[edit]
Since this article has remained in CAT:CSD for two days, it is not an uncontroversial speedy deletion candidate. Francisco Tenório Cerqueira Júnior has dubious notability. There are some results on Google News Archive but WP:BLP1E might apply here. Cunard (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Islander. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] An Endless Sporadic (band)[edit]
Prod removed without explanation. Again, one released internet-only album, no label and a single on Myspace isn't enough notability. Three songs were released for Guitar Hero but I don't think that's enough notability for the band. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Shiftboard[edit]
I cannot find significant coverage for this org; I see some passing mentions, but no articles actually about the subject - other than press-release things that are not independent of the source. Chzz ► 22:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anandrao mane[edit]
|
The result was redirect to Nox Arcana. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Darklore Manor[edit]
For the same reasons given and accepted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood of Angels. This article has only self-published refs and links to references that make no mention of the album; It is not a particularly notable album; I don't think that this album warrants its own articlebecause there not enough facts in RS's to make one. It is non-encyclopadic and does not conform to a neutral point of view - for example, "Darklore Manor has inspired others to create haunted houses using the music". Without enough sources, I don't see how it can be 'fixed'. Chzz ► 23:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Milan (band)[edit]
I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX[edit]AfDs for this article:
Almost completely untouched since its nomination for deletion three years ago. Has few lines of worthwhile content, and no creation info whatsoever. No more special than many other fan games. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Expressive power of natural language[edit]
No sources, apparently original, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. AlanHogue (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. needs the sources to be provided to survive Spartaz Humbug! 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Titanine, Incorporated[edit]
A company that crashed in the 1930s. No evidence that it is any more notable than hundreds of other companies that crashed then and are forgotten. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ghost Folks[edit]
Unremarkable download track; band has a page, so probably CSD is not appropriate - but if it's limited to 50 copies, it's hard to see how it will become notable. Chzz ► 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] As this album is part of their vast discography, in my opinion it should be included in separate article, no matter how many copies were pressed. Also I've linked it from NSB article so it shouldn't be considered as an orphaned article too (Pyramidek, 01:45, 12 August) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyramidek (talk • contribs) 23:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Schwa (restaurant)[edit]
Since April, the notability of this article has been called into question. Other than the restaurant's website, there's only one source listed and this doesn't even show the restaurant to be notable in itself, only that it served as the birthday location for Charlie Trotter. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 16:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- ^ Bennett, Charles H.; Vincenzo, David P.; Smolin, John A.; Wooters, William K. (1996), "Mixed State Entanglement and Quantum Error Correction", Phys. Rev. A 54: 3824-3851[52],
- ^ Adriano Barenco, Charles H. Bennett, Richard Cleve, David P. DiVincenzo, Norman Margolus, Peter Shor, Tycho Sleator, John A. Smolin, and Harald Weinfurter(1995), "Elementary gates for quantum computation", Phys. Rev. A 52: 3457 - 3467[53],
- ^ Bennett, Charles H.; Vincenzo, David P.; Smolin, John A.; Wooters, William K. (1996), "Mixed State Entanglement and Quantum Error Correction", Phys. Rev. A 54: 3824-3851[54],