Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
- 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The result was withdrawn.. tedder (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Norman Hsu (disambiguation)[edit]
- Norman Hsu (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unnecessary page, already a hatnote on only article on a Norman Hsu to only article mentioning another Norman Hsu. I prodded this and it was removed because the editor felt that Hsu was better known for the school board than the controversy and that Hsu is not mentioned in controversy article. This isn't the case - Nornam N. Hsu is not mentioned on school board link, and is mentioned on controversy link (try searching for Mr Hsu rather than Norman Hsu). Boleyn3 (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There was significant confusion at the time of Norman Hsu's notoriety in August 2008 - i.e two politically connected individuals that shared the same name, with the school board member being unfairly mistaken for the Ponzi scheme artist. Also, the threshold for disambiguation pages is lower than for articles. Ronnotel (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't meet dab guidelines - MOS:DABRL, which is the threshold for disambiguation pages. If you think he's notable, consider creating an article. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep And the confusion has not ended. Norman N. Hsu is a Republican and ran for CA state assembly primary in 1998. You can't compare an article of an entity with that of an event. Norman N. Hsu is obviously listed on the school district website. And both persons will continue to appear in the news. HkCaGu (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hsu is not mentioned on the school board article. I am also not arguing for no disambiguation - only that disambiguation can be better served. At the moment, someone would type in Norman Hsu if they wanted Norman N. Hsu, end up at the wrong article, then click on the dab link, then go to a dab with a selection of blue links connected to Hsu, including two he isn't mentioned on. My proposal is that they type in Norman Hsu and see a direct link at the top of this page to the only article which mentions Hsu. Boleyn3 (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm afraid you've got me completely lost. Can you please be more specific regarding your desired page layout. The potential pages are: NYYH (Norman Y. Y. Hsu), NNH (Norman N. Hsu), School (the school board page) and DAB (disambiguation page). To which exact page will the search term "Norman Hsu" link to and how will the casual reader be instructed regarding the difference between the two individuals? I'm not saying you don't have a valid proposal, but I'd like to understand it. Ronnotel (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe search term Norman Hsu already goes straight to the only article on a person of that name, who you are referring to as Norman Y. Y. Hsu. At the top of Norman Hsu was a hatnote to Norman Hsu (disambiguation), so if someone realised that the Norman Hsu they'd arrived at wasn't the one they were looking for, they'd click on the hatnote link and go to the disambiguation page. They'd then read it through, perhaps click on two links in Norman N. Hsu's entry which don't mention him - very frustrating - and then click on the third one which does. A very long way round to finding the only information on WP about him. I changed the hatnote from linking to the dab, to linking directly to the one article which mentions Norman N. Hsu. This would mean if someone types in Norman Hsu and relaises it's the wrong one, there is a clearly worded hatnote which will take them directly to the only article that mentions him, instead of all round Wikipedia. Boleyn3 (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I understand what you are suggesting but I hardly think it would help distinguish NYYH from NNH. The mention of NNH in the Ted Sioeng link is misleading and suffers from the same confusion between the two I identified above. The sentence is confusing and seemingly suggest that NNH contributed to HRC in 2007, which is not supported by the sources. The text in the DAB page is much clearer about the difference between NYYH and NNH. Ronnotel (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative Keep, without prejudice to early renom. With due respect for Boleyn's concerns, i think AfD is likely to be an unsuitable place for hashing out a Dab problem, which is what seems to be in progress. (And there is a question, since Dab's are aggressively stated not to be articles, whether this is the place to do it. That is not just a technicality: the issues weighed on AfD recur over and over, but they are completely different from Dab issues, and how many frequent AfD discussants have seriously studied both MoSDab and MoS? It's not surprising that the arguments are hard to follow here!)
IMO it would be more appropriate to work out the Dab issues, at WT:Disambiguation if necessary, and if we end up with a useless or harmful Rdr (after an appropriate merge), take that to WP:RfD.
--Jerzy•t 08:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination simply because this is dragging on and wasting people's time. I've created an article on Norman N. Hsu - those who know about him may well want to edit this as it is currently very much a stub. I've tidied up the dab so it means the guidelines - 1 blue link per line on dabs (and that blue link should actually mention the entry) and shortened it, as for further info people should look to the article. If anyone feels that the two Hsus still may easily be confused, please adjust the wording, but without much increasing the sentence fragment for each entry - it shouldn't really be more than a line, as beyond that, people should click for the article. Boleyn3 (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2009 (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 delete. NW (Talk) 01:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comparison of ABAP and Java[edit]
Synthesis with no meaningful refs. These 2 languages are not closely related enough to be sensibly considered comparable; they're from completely different generations. One is a proprietary COBOL-like language used to script a server, the other is a modern, fairly open C-based language. Cybercobra (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 00:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 32 Below (band)[edit]
fails WP:MUSIC. Winning a competition to open for a second-rate country band is not the same as winning a notable competition/award. Ironholds (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete, obvious advertising: It invests in a wide variety of investment projects which suit its objectives and targets. It has been well in line with international trends over the years and has been re-aligning the investment strategies to meet the market trends. Targets have changed throughout the years and it has achieved excellent results with help of local and international partners. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] NAMA Investment Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd[edit]
Non-notable investment company. No news items on google for this company makes it unlikely that notability could ever be addressed. Ash (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Polish Club of San Francisco[edit]
Non-notable organization. Reading the rather lengthy article reveals no claim of notability. Article is sourced to in-house publications. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Pat Lovett[edit]
Notability not established. Commissioner of a minor hockey league - very few hits on google. noq (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Club for Laugh Lovers[edit]
No notability, no reliable sources. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 7 Princesses[edit]
non-notable nickname. Lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only references to Facebook fan counts and a single web magazine which appears to be a fan club for one of these artists. RadioFan (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the navbox.
| ||||||
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 00:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Richard A. Baker (politician)[edit]
fails WP:POLITICIAN. The only coverage comes from a minor local newspaper, which is hardly a testament to his notability - as the local senate candidate, of course he's going to have coverage. Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Carlson Young[edit]
Fails WP:BIO in general and WP:ENT in particular. Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Newcastle Aviation Academy[edit]
Notability for this organization not established (using WP:ORG) as no sources support any claims made. The possible relationship with Kingston Uni is unclear as "supervising" does not imply an organizational relationship. It is not clear if this is an educational institute, a commercial training company or a charity. In accordance with WP:BEFORE, the article has been marked as an advert needing re-write but after no progress for over two years it would be better to delete and let someone create the article from new if there is real demand. Ash (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Awake (Dream Theater album). Awake (Dream Theater album) NW (Talk) 01:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Lie (Dream Theater song)[edit]
WP:NSONG tells us three things relevant to this nomination. First, "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." Second, songs must must the requirements of WP:GNG, although placement on "national or significant music charts ... [or winning] significant awards or honors" establishes a presumption of notability. And third, even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." This song fails to clear that hurdle and should be deleted or merged into Awake (Dream Theater album).
- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Chandos Ring[edit]
This and another article I'll be adding, Greatest Living Poet: Strange Gods, Bulk Prophecies, were deprodded by the author, Snizhana (talk · contribs). They are both works written by one Mark Chandos, whose article I speedily deleted earlier today as an A7. We have here two works published by Xlibris, a self-publishing/print-on-demand printer, neither of which has received any outside coverage that I've been able to find. The articles are very self-aggrandizing, and read as self-promotion to me; had there been a speedy deletion criteria to deal with them earlier, I certainly would have. The author has argued on the talk page of one that it has notability due to sales numbers, but through a self-pub facility, that's questionable at best to me. (A new editor has also weighed in on that talk page.) My view is that neither of these publications has any independent references to assert notability, and both should be deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I am also nominating the following related pages:
The following three comments have been moved from Talk:Greatest Living Poet: Strange Gods, Bulk Prophecies. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] John Guidetti[edit]
Contested PROD. I believe this player fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't yet "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". The infobox claims he has made two appearances for IF Brommapojkarna (although said appearances are unreferenced), but even if the stats are true, they are only for appearances made in the Superettan, Sweden's second division - a semi-professional league. This player also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." GiantSnowman 13:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Frédéric Dalsace[edit]
Assistant professor, with only one publication with a lot of citations. However, not the first author on that publication. Received some minor in-house awards. Prodded earlier and deprodded, then prodded and deprodded by me. Abductive (reasoning) 22:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Paul Middleton[edit]
Not notable. Andrew Duffell (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Procedural keep; ought to be merged. NW (Talk) 15:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Uzbekistan-Japan Center[edit]
fails WP:ORG, gnews reveals very little [18]. unless someone can find significant coverage in Uzbek or Japanese. also looks like a copy violation. LibStar (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. — Jake Wartenberg 19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Mise (band)[edit]
Non-notable. No reliable sources are quoted in order to demonstrate notability. Failing to win an award in 2002 is not a rationale for notability and even this is not properly sourced. The page has been marked as an advert for over 2 years with no sign of this problem being addressed or ever likely to be addressed. Ash (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Harper Valley PTA. — Jake Wartenberg 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Harper Valley[edit]
In-universe plot regurgitation of the song and movie, says nothing that isn't already stated in Harper Valley PTA and other articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to VAST. NW (Talk) 22:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Michael Austinmoore[edit]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] At the Cirkus[edit]
I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg album. Joe Chill (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Woodism[edit]
Essay. PROD removed. No references, can only find references for a religion of the same name. TheWeakWilled 21:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete Marasmusine (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Quality Games Online[edit]
Non-notable company. I tried CSD A7, but the speedy was declined. Tckma (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of fictional places on Hayate the Combat Butler[edit]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list's content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans and does not contribute the the encyclopedic coverage of the series. Farix (Talk) 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Andrew Motchell[edit]
This article is about a non-notable person with absolutely no google hits. DavidCane (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bounce Energy[edit]
Highly promotional article for apparently unimportant company. Nothing at all in Google News Archive except one PR release or possibly stock analyst's reco. on Busness Wire. Lots of advertisement for it on google, mixed with a few consumer complaints. Another admin previously declined a A7 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to The Ring (2002 film). This is a tough call, and a "no consensus" close might have sufficed, but merging seems like a reasonable option given the various arguments advanced during the discussion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anna Morgan[edit]
Horror movie character with no third party reliable sources attesting to notability that I could find. Naturally, the name is common, and this article stands in the way of the possible creation of an article about a real person with true notability. Abductive (reasoning) 23:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Those that have voted keep have argued either that this article is not original research or that there are indeed reliable secondary sources. However, the delete side argues that no secondary sources can really be found; only the Zero Hour timeline, a primary source, truly attempts to create a timeline for this article and that the general notability guideline requires more than that. Like the closing administrator in the closely linked AfD of Fictional history of the Marvel universe, I too "find the delete argumenst are moe in accordance with policy but will be willing to undelete instantly if [multiple] proper secondary sources can be found." NW (Talk) 00:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fictional history of the DC Universe[edit]
Article (which is a time line rather than a history as the title suggests) build upon original research and can *only* be constructed from original research - the timeline presented here is constructed upon three seperate sliding timepoints that are determined by reading the primary sources (and out of date ones at that), and then deciding when comics published at any time over the last 50 years fit into them based upon clues in the comics. Please take a strong drink before reading the next bit – two examples follow. 1) For example - take one tiny small bit "modern Era of Heroes: Year One" and the bit of that which is the batman listing. This is a mixture of a number of primary sources - The Batman stuff is based upon (but not limited to) a mixture of Batman Year one (published in 1987), Batman and the Monsters (published in 2006) which means they were all published during separate versions of when year one happened. Even more problematical is the face that the "current", "2000 timeline" and zero hour time-lines used as guidepoints have incommensurability built into them by the writers, so events that happened under one timeline did not happen under another or happened a different way under a third. So saying that they are related in the way the boxes suggest "14 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago" is complete guesswork, some events will have carried over but others will not, it’s impossible to determine until the writers decide which and when and how. For example, the history of Lex Luthor might be right or wrong or a bit of both depending on which comics you want to hold be true.Let me give you a few brief example, until 1986, Lex Luthor grew up with Superboy in Smallville, but they changed it all and there was no superboy, and Lex Luthor did not grow up in smallville, then in 2004 or so, he did but there was no superman. Then it was decided he did not. Now they have decided that he did and superboy did exist but it all happened in a slightly different way. So when did all of this happen? Who the hell can tell? 2) Who wants an even more complex example? if you can work it out, you get a cookie on my homepage. J'onn Jones came to earth 38 years ago - but the zero hour time line happened in 1994, so that 1956 right? Using the current one, he either came back in 1971 using that dating or came back 50 odd years ago. Problem is that I have a comic that puts the date at about 1954, while another mini-series would place it happening sometime in the mid 1970s, another series about the Martian manhunter makes it slightly earlier in the 1950s. Once you decide which story is true, which timeline is it true under? Why? – let me know on my talkpage if you have an answer. Secondary sources do discuss the DC timeline but they discuss them in general terms when noting that superhero universities operate to a) a sliding timescale and b) that slide timescale is constantly changed rather than fixed and real time in the way that the Judge Dredd universe is. Let me repeat what I started with – this time line is impossible without novel synthesis and original research and the use of arbitrary decisions on the part of the editors about a) what happened, b) when and c) how. Cameron Scott (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add a "day of the week" column - because every time he plays golf may have occurred on the same tuesday. So events listed as occurring on "tuesday" in a comic will go in the Tuesday column and so on. It's from the primary sources so must be good. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed the "floating timeline" calculator. That's a very bad idea, as it actively encouages original research in order to determine when the events take place. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the floating timeline calculator is over-analytical and silly. It simultaneously displays a relative, in-universe date and an absolute, real time date. I feel this will increase confusion rather than reduce it and that our universe should be kept out of their universe. It gives the impression that these stories have settings idiosyncratic to the years mentioned, which they didn't. Besides, the relative dates were sufficient. The reader already knows 38 years ago would have been 1971. Having the year 1971 displayed there actually gives the impression that the timeline isn't floating after all but that it's occurring in real time. ArtistScientist (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Cooldere[edit]
Article looks like a neologism, after a quick google search there didn't seem to be any reliable sources that mention "cooldere". Violates WP:NFT and WP:NOR. Feinoha Talk, My master 21:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of states and union territories of India by voters[edit]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Several other related statistical articles were created, linked in a box to the top right hand side of the article. Some of these (Population, Area, GDP) might be useful to merge into States and territories of India. Others (Underweight people, TV ownership) might qualify for deletion under the same WP:INDISCRIMINATE criterion. Tckma (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ivy Bound[edit]
non-notable. No outside references per WP:RS Transmissionelement (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. The argument put forth by the nominator regarding the subject's notability, as per WP:N standards, was cogent and solid, and the article's supporters were not able to successfully pick it apart (let alone tear it down). If this article passed WP:ORG and WP:RS standards -- even marginally -- we would not be having this debate. As it stands, the current article needs to be removed. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Lane End Primary School[edit]AfDs for this article:
Generally, primary schools are not considered notable, and I don't see why this should be the exception. Its only "notable" feature is the fact it apparently received Grade 1 from Ofsted. This does not make it notable or special or anything. Other than the usual league tables and data you'd get for every school in the country, there is little to suggest this school is worth having an article. See also the discussion here. Majorly talk 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jumper 2: The War Begins[edit]
Hoax and WP:CRYSTAL. A google search provides no results for the movie. Mr.TrustWorthy----Talk to Me! 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Debbie Dorsey[edit]
Speedy tag was declined. Article created by the subject herself. Appears to fail notability, although one RS has been provided, I haven't found any others on Google News search or a general google search. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to The Presets. Content is in the page history if anybody wants to preform a merge. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Are You the One?[edit]
No assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Down Down Down[edit]
No assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Cossart, Pennsylvania[edit]
Despite its name, the article is about a local road, not a community. No evidence of notability: most of the sources are self-published (including a blog), and the only really reliable source is a local government page, which is being used simply to note that the road was recently closed. The book Weird Pennsylvania is being used as a source, but books in this series aren't reliable sources: the authors of the Ohio edition of this book state, "Weird Ohio is intended as entertainment...the authors and publisher make no representation as to their factual accuracy." Without significant coverage from reliable sources, this can't be notable. Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nature Walks with Mark Fraser[edit]
Contested speedy. Local public access television show with no notability indicated. Only sources are a community newspaper (not generally good enough for WP:RS) and a YouTube channel, and there's significant evidence that the article's creator and main editor has been Mark Fraser himself. No vote from me as this is procedural, but I will say that I can't see how the topic could ever meet WP:N. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was deleted, then redirect setup. I've read through the opinions below, and all sides have good points. However, this article is clearly a problem, not least from the failure to define "media personalities" to anything reasonable and the WP:BLP problems associated with the use of the word "vandalised". This list itself, without context, would seem to go against several Wikipedia practices; BLP, of course, but also WP:V and WP:RS. The ill-definition of the what constitutes a reason for ending up on this list is compounded by the lack of context that a list format allows for. If people want to add reliably sourced and clearly defined entries to Wikipedia in culture, they should do so, as this allows for more context and removes the stigma of "vandalised" in the title. ➲ REDVERS It sucks to be me 09:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia[edit]AfDs for this article:
This article is inappropriate on so many levels. First and foremost, even though the article is named "... who have vandalised Wikipedia", not close to all of the entries meet that description. Of the 13 entries on the list:
Calling the article "list of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia" unfairly libels the six entries where the subjects did something other than vandalize. Secondly, of the 15 references, only SEVEN of them (covering 5 of the 13 entries) are still active links available the public. If we're going to be claiming that these people vandalized Wikipedia, we ought to have something to go on. Third, SIX of these SEVEN live references are actually written by the person involved, as opposed to secondary sources independent of the subject. In other words, only ONE of these so-called incidents involving vandalism was significant enough for someone to write about it and remains available to us today to verify it. Fourth, yes, it's a behavior guideline and not a content policy, but this screams WP:DENY. Fifth, this smacks of Wikipedia keeping an enemies list, as opposed to something that actually belongs in an encyclopedia. This BLP-violating trash has no place on Wikipedia and I ask that it be deleted. --B (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The list title alone is problematic. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 15:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Simon Dunn[edit]
Insufficient reliable sources from which to write a biography. All the article sources are self-written web entries or press releases. Kevin (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 15:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] A Place With No Name[edit]AfDs for this article:
Previously closed debate. Found out the nominator merged content himself. I am neutral, with no opinion on delete or keep. Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(←)See nomination comments.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(←) see WP:NAC A non admin probably shouldn't close this one to prevent what happened last time >.>.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 11:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Procedural. The consensus seems to be to convert the page to a disambiguation page. NW (Talk) 01:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Screens of death[edit]
Screens of death is quite a large page, so I'll try to explain my reasoning for nominating this for deletion carefully:
In conclusion, I believe this article is an incoherent list of uncited facts that are of dubious notability, and duplicates the contents of other articles in the cases where notability does exist. fraggle (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Backronym#False acronyms. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Port Out, Starboard Home[edit]
This is not a concept. The article is not about "poshness" as a concept, nor is it about an actual practice in which first-class passengers were given berths on the opposite side of a vessel for the return trip. We don't even have an article on poshness to which this content could possibly be relevant. Powers T 15:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy delete NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Arabacademy[edit]
Delete. Claims notability however article is writen as spam would take a rewrite to make it feasible Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy close no reason to delete. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Pullad[edit]
Some user has copied the contents of Kumbanad and created Pullad. None of the content or the photos belongs to Pullad village. Both Kumbanad and Pullad are villages in Pathanamthitta District in Kerala and are not brother towns. The copycat has added five lines of his own and they are filled with spelling and grammar errors. Either Pullad should be edited with meaningful content related to Pullad village or deleted. The photos in the Kumbanad article have been copied over to Pullad and renamed. This is horrendous. Either the author is lazy enough to create on his own or is just whiling his free time in Wiki by copying entire articles over. I started the Kumbanad article and the write up on Kumbanad has been result of years of hard work and research. All but one of the photos on the Kumbanad page have been taken by me. vinodjg (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Seems the copycat deleted most of the page and retained the first few lines. But anyways reviewers, check the history of this article. vinodjg (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 15:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of Taiwanese footballers[edit]
This article is literally a category in list form. Every player here - and many more besides - are already listed in Category:Taiwanese footballers, with no additional information presented. The fact that many of the articles listed on {{Association football players}} redirect to categories or other, more general articles show that there is no need, and no desire, for such a specific 'List of Fooian footballers'. Note, a previous AfD, in which this article was one of multiple listed, resulted in a 'No Consensus' vote. GiantSnowman 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 15:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Riverside Restaurant[edit]
This is a blatant advert for a restaurant It has no place on Wikipedia. Simple Bob (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 15:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of Danish footballers[edit]
This article is literally a category in list form. Every player here - and many more besides - are already listed in Category:Danish footballers, with no additional information presented. The fact that many of the articles listed on {{Association football players}} redirect to categories or other, more general articles show that there is no need, and no desire, for such a specific 'List of Fooian footballers'. Note, a previous AfD, in which this article was one of multiple listed, resulted in a 'No Consensus' vote. GiantSnowman 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 15:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of Brazilian footballers[edit]AfDs for this article:
This article is literally a category in list form. Every player here - and many more besides - are already listed in Category:Brazilian footballers. The only "additional" information presented here is dates of birth, but that is no reason for this article to be kept. The fact that many of the articles listed on {{Association football players}} redirect to categories or other, more general articles show that there is no need, and no desire, for such a specific 'List of Fooian footballers'. GiantSnowman 15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 15:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Madison Art Collection[edit]
I think think this is a hoax article. What do you think? Tagishsimon (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 15:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] X-men (live-action tv-series)[edit]
hoax - I can't find a single google hit for this, which for an X-men related thing goes far past odd and ends in WP:BOLLOCKS. Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. WP:NAC—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC) [reply] Neil cusack[edit]
Delete, non sourced and is a five line trivia article. Also appears to be created under a COi. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Annie (musical). — Jake Wartenberg 19:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Annie jr[edit]AfDs for this article:
Non-encyclopedic, non-authorized, amateur production of existing copyrighted stage play; if anything, this is pretty much fan fiction brought to the stage. In any event, it is non-notable, and should be deleted mhking (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This next comment by Trufflesthedog was left on the talk page of this discussion. —SlamDiego←T 04:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions: Meehan, Thomas., Charnin, Martin., Strouse, Charles. Other titles: Annie Junior, Little Orphan Annie (Comic strip) By statement: [book by Thomas Meehan ; music by Charles Strouse ; lyrics by Martin Charnin]. Series: The Broadway junior collection Language: English Pagination: 134 p. : LCCN: 2002537292 LC: ML50.S9355 A6 1998 Genre: Librettos., Drama. Subject: Musicals (Juvenile) — Librettos Little Orphan Annie (Fictitious character) — Drama How's that for proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.172.97 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC) \[reply]
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep; nomination withdrawn per Joe's sources. Non-admin closure. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sony BDP-S1[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Sony BDP-S1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Individual Blu-ray player which fails notability requirements. Additionally, WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTCATALOG, and the article is presently written like a manual. Cybercobra (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that previous nomination was part of a group AfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this AfD listed at Technology-related deletion discussions list --Cybercobra (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per this, this, this, and this. That is 6 reliable sources with significant coverage (the last one is a list of 3). Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. — Jake Wartenberg 22:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jon the Postman[edit]
Completing nomination on behalf of anonymous editor at IP 81.111.114.131, who has put a rationale on the article's talk page which reads "Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Coverage seems to be mostly trivial, and it would appear this gentleman is "famous" for having misbehaved at a number of small gigs. He may perhaps be notable as one of the few people in the audience who didn't go on to great success. An interesting anecdote, but little more." Michig (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Somehow, when originally closing, I missed half the discussion. Sorry about that. More sources and ideas have come up within the latter few days, so some time should be given for the article to expand before this article is renominated. NW (Talk) 00:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wrong number[edit]
I actually reprieved this article last year when someone blanked-and-redirected it, but a year on nothing has improved and, realistically, I can't seen any way this will ever become a viable article. Other than a single inbound link from List of Rescue 911 episodes the article is entirely orphaned. The majority is a simple dictionary definition (indeed, the only source is yourdictionary.com), and the remainder is a mix of truisms ("Some common ways in which a wrong number is dialed include pressing one or more wrong keys on the keypad of the phone") and personal opinions masquerading as fact ("Proper telephone etiquette requires that the wrongly dialed party politely inform the caller of that fact, and also that the caller apologize rather than simply hanging up"). – iridescent 10:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Timothy Zahn Untitled 2011 Project[edit]
Seems like there is almost nothing out for this. WP:HAMMER for a book? TheWeakWilled 10:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 20:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Arte del Oeste[edit]
Non-notable company with a single retail location; no WP:RS Tassedethe (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. NAC—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC) [reply] Vanessa Hall-Smith[edit]
Probably a non-notable person, through the article has an unreliable source and it doesn't apply WP:BIO. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 09:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bounceball[edit]
No reference is cited to give any indication that this newly-invented childrens' game is notable. PROD removed by author, who says: "I believe that Bounceball has the potential to become one of the greatest games" - if that happens, and it is written about in independent reliable sources, then it can have an article, but for now Wikipedia is not for games made up one day and is not the place to promote a new game. JohnCD (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy closing because the article is already proposed for a quicker deletion. Masamage ♫ 16:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Cyber Girls Akihabara[edit]
A manga series hasn't been unreferenced and unsourced since the time of the article stared. It has been unverifiable since 2008 and clearly not notable enough. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 09:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Paul LaViolette[edit]
Appears to fail our WP:PEOPLE criteria for notability, the article mentions the subjects "lack of popularity and obscurity" and says he is not mentioned by other scientists. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific articles written by LaViolette[edit]In his retort to the sidebar of the 1999 Voss article in Science LaViolette lists the following articles:
He lists these in support of the following claims made in the same submission (the excerpt is from LaViolette's letter):
__meco (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ra (channeled entity)[edit]AfDs for this article:
I have nominated this article for deletion. This topic isn't notable, as it hasn't received any attention in reliable, serious, secondary sources. WP:FRINGE provides guidance here, and I'd suggest people familiarize themselves with it in this debate. Irbisgreif (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C-JEAN. Hi, admins. You and we know that RA was "channeled" by Carla Rueckert. NOW, why is "Edgar Cayce" not a "problem" in this encyclo?? Mr. Cayce's ways of communication are EXACTLY the same as Carla L. Rueckert's. So, to NOT delete this part of the case, at least, merge it with Carla L. Rueckert, or her husband, please ?? Thx. C-JEAN (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi admins. I did go read the 2 suggested subjects. And in one of them it talks about "Pokemon_test". So I did the experiment to put Pokemon in the [search] button and IT IS UNBELIEVABLE ! ! It is there? I can't understand why you keep Pokemon, and want to kill Ra channeling (the same as Edgar Cayce), a MAJOR realisation of Carla. Pokemon is sooooo a **mondaine** subject. I did another experiment. I did write [What the BLEEP] on the button, and IT IS THERE !! CONGRATS, admins. You have keep a VERY important film in the history of cinema, and of the planet, so far. It **IS** de 3 DVDs kit of "What the BLEEP!? down the rabbit whole" that made me "progress" towards Carla and her very important works. So, I DID read [[cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist;]] ! I don't understand: That IS exactly what you base your "delete" proposition on. . . So, if you are right with your reasons for the delete, we respectfuly ask if you could merge that part of the "dossier" in Carla Rueckert's file, please? The RA material was a 4 YEAR job. Read the beginning of it, you will see how serious the setup was made, how serious the "protection" was done before the sessions, and that Carla is a serious catholic woman, still alive (reason for no "bio", yet!!!) [ and I am NOT a catholic instigator/promoter! ]. See how Carla had lots of pain during her sessions, and she did NOT stop. . . Conclusion: we would be very thankful if you could simply merge this "field of knowledge" with Carla Rueckert and her husband Don Elkins. Thanks. C-JEAN (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice, those commenting on this may also wish to comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Logos5557/Ra_(channeled_entity). Irbisgreif (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hi, again. Hi, admins. I understand your carefulness/prudence with entries in the encyclo. For { notability }, here are sites that link to Ra, in a way or another. Meaning via the links in web pages, or via the documentations, in the hard disks. Some involve $money, and many are TOTALY FREE. Prooving their honnesty: ABC Online Forum http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/archives/archive52/newposts/362/topic362627.shtm BBC NEWS ; Talk about Newsnight ; Latest news FORUM http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2008/05/latest_news_its_the_end_of_the_world.html BBS radio. The Don & Wynn Show with guest Carla Rueckert. http://www.bbsradio.com/bbc/don_wynn_show/transcript_12-3-05.shtml Learn about the amazing work. . . ALL free. http://www.dvfugit.com/lawofone.php Divine Cosmos Discussions = $ and free. http://www.divinecosmos.com/forums/search.php?s=347985708230bd2bc663a620fb7d67fe&do=getnew Bring4th Carla forum. http://www.bring4th.org/forums/search.php?action=getnew Project Camelot, = free for L/L http://www.projectcamelot.org/ Law of One ___RA___ PDFs == FREE for ALL of it http://www.thesonsofthelawofone.com/lawofonepdfs.html Above top secret forum = BIG membership ! http://www.abovetopsecret.com/stats.html http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread457086/pg1&addstar=1&on=6217602#pid6217602 Introduction to The RA Material. . . FREE B-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQtLvStyrzM David Icke's Official Forums http://www.davidicke.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-19399.html Here is our Logistics for notability/popularity : You have decided to keep Edgar Cayce, channeling EXACTLY the same way Carla Rueckert did. But Edgar's events happened in the '30s. Carla's RA events happened in the '80s. Soooooo Edgar had a LONG time to gain CUMULATIVE popularity, with 50 YEARS to gain it, before the internet got popular. Carla had 0 years ! She is STILL "growing" in popularity, and her story is MUCH younger, in the net. . . Soooo, to not lose the time done in Wikipidia, by the person who invested it, we ask if it could be MERGEd in L/L or Carla Rueckert, or Don Elkins, please ? Thanks. C-JEAN (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HI, Logos5557. What is "sockpuppet" ? English is not my first language. Puppet alone. I know what it is, but sock?? Anyway. I did read all 5 books of the "Ra material", and for me, I put that message at the same level as bible or coran. The Ra message answers MANY questions ! It is the reason I try to save the works of the other person(s). As I told: if Wiki keeps Pokemon and the (old) Edgar Cayce, why not the (new/young) Carla and Ra subject ??? {notability} is not here yet, it's on its way. . . B-) Is something wrong with that logic? Thanks. I will stop, after these last questions. {{ I am a member of [61] }} C-JEAN (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand who Logos5557 was suggesting C-JEAN might be a sockpuppet of, seeing that C-JEAN and Logos5557 are the only editors here objecting to the article's deletion. Perhaps Logos5557 was guessing that C-JEAN's was trolling, sort of arguing for "delete" by arguing "keep" in a deliberately clueless fashion. Which would be pure paranoia. If Wikipedia has told me something, it's that application of Hanlon's razor gives scarily accurate results. --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. Tone 20:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Stolen Winnebagos[edit]
Speedy was declined as the author claims they won a grammy. Band does not appear to be notable. Google search brings up myspace, facebook and ticket websites. The claim that they won a grammy in 2003 for album of the year is hogwash, Norah Jones won album of the year in 2003. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Closing a couple days early but consensus is quite clear on this. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] RO•BOT (film)[edit]
Movie's too early per WP:NFF. No indication of notability, and pre-shoot movies are not eligible unless substantial media coverage about the pre-shoot. Shadowjams (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of bundling with this the related article RO-BOT by the same author, about a novel "created in 2009". There is no indication that this book is notable, or even that it has been published: no author's name or ISBN is given, and I find no trace of it on Google Books or Amazon. JohnCD (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kirakira[edit]
failed PROD with the reasoning "Verifiable currently/previously inhabited locations are notable". I am not disputing its verifiability, but notability as there it fails the GNG and there is no current SNG for populated places. 陣内Jinnai 04:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Chase (film)[edit]
Too soon. Can't find sources. Shadowjams (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Best Interests of the Child in New York Courts[edit]
Personal essay that looks to be copy-pasted. Maybe deserves to be a redirect to some sort of NY Family law article (but how would this ever be a search title), but I seek consensus before doing that change. I don't see how this article (particularly with this title) is encyclopedic without a substantial overhaul. More importantly, the "best interests of the child" standard is relatively standard across states, and differences should be worked out in a comparison article. In other words, there's nothing special about NY in this respect. We'd be better off having a Comparison of best interests of the child standards article forked out of Best interests, which is also a good redirect candidate. Shadowjams (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] John Ramey[edit]
Vague assertations of notability, no secondary sources found. Tagged as unsourced since March 2007 since nobody gave a rip. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 13:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Whipple Van Buren Phillips[edit]
Not independently notable. Only references speak of him in small detail due to his relation to H. P. Lovecraft. HarlandQPitt (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Pindargram[edit]
This article is very vague about precisely what a "Pindargram" is, or how it differs from other diagrams. I couldn't find any non-WP-based coverage on the web, so suspect it is either a neologism or hoax. However, it has several references, which I have been unable to check, so perhaps someone more familiar with them could verify their use. The web link didn't work for me. This is the only contribution of the editor except for his user page, which was apparently used to draft the article. Rigadoun (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] General Science Journal[edit]
non-notable Tim Shuba (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Martial artists in DC Comics[edit]Martial artists in DC Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is a second nomination. Since first nomination, over 1 year ago (clean-up tags have existed for over 2 years), no work has been done to improve on the issues of the article. The article is still comprised solely of original research and synthesis. The sorting and classification of each school violates policy. There are no 3rd party references aside from 1 fan-site. The article by conception is both insignificant and irresolvable. The martial arts in the superhero genre of comics is neither novel or notable, as most superheroes by nature would be defined as martial artists. This does not seem to be a merge issue as there is no single article to merge such material to, and the general contents can be found through out the multiple minor character articles linked throughout this page. -Sharp962 (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC).[reply] Delete Non-notable list system organized by original research and personal opinion. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] KEEP (plz, i took tae twan daeo myself for a few yrs, and its awesome! sides, how most supes marital aritsts? ???) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Monkey Bar[edit]AfDs for this article:
A local pub with a curious nickname, but no other notability. There are the typical listings in pub directories, such as beerintheevening, but they have little to say. That it reads like an advert, has no references and doesn't assert notability are not reasons for deleting, but when combined with lack of reliable sources, and lack of reviews in the pub directories, do indicate low notability. SilkTork *YES! 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Meeting With the G-Man[edit]
I can't find significant coverage for this album bootleg. Joe Chill (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. In addition, I have redirected the Jonathan Hipp article, per the final comment's suggestion. NW (Talk) 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] James Brennan[edit]
Seems like a non-notable DC area attorney/businessman. Article amounts to a vanity piece. Many assertions exaggerate on what is actually stated in the cited sources. I also nominate for deletion the Jonathan Hipp article (Brennan's colleague created by the same editor) as his notability seems to be limited to that he is quoted several times in reliable sources about net lease transactions. I looked up the cited articles and they do not support the assertions in the articles nor do they establish he is notable. His company, Calkain Companies, Inc. seems to be notable though.
What is an example of a cited article that is not supported by it's assertion in the Jonathan Hipp page? Additionally, this article offers incite to someone interested in net lease transactions.
The article gives a history of Jonathan Hipp and his previous jobs as a net lease broker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeTheEconomy (talk • contribs) 17:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Kitchen Tape[edit]
I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg album. Joe Chill (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep. Being shortlisted for the Wooden Award is notable enough, and has been named to the All Big Ten second team. Zagalejo puts it nicely. Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] E'Twaun Moore[edit]AfDs for this article:
No assertion of notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep. The reviews seem to be enough to show notability. Malinaccier (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Atlantis Word Processor[edit]
No citation of independent reliable sources, no assertion of notability. Cynical (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AWplanet[edit]
Subject does not appear to have received any significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources: therefore failing the general notability guidelines. Talk page comment from last year mentions that there may be Russian-language sources. No useful links from the .ru wiki Marasmusine (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] TJT National Cricket League[edit]
Non-notable brand-new sports organization. Amounts to a local cricket league with all games played at one ground. Does not even rise to the level of a minor league. Only one reference given; can't find anything else of consequence. Vague mentions on discussion page of possible television and such, and that this is a "major work in progress" - which means it isn't notable yet. Contested PROD; actually was deleted, then restored after original author yelped. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Mysterious Pastimes of Mohini-murti[edit]
Not notable and no RS. Wikidas© 07:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Geocap (mapping & modeling)[edit]AfDs for this article:
Non-notable company that produces software that hasn't received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See the above {{find sources}} links. The few references to software with this name (none to the company that I could identify) seem to be to a proprietary Shell Oil software package, not to this company's product. But even if it's the same product, none of the coverage is more than passing. Bongomatic 05:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Blackouts (1979 band)[edit]
Not notable, long time undeveloped stub most unlikely to be developed further, zero notable hits except automatic quotations from Wikipedia. The multiple What links here? links appear to be almost entirely routine inclusions in Related articles sections but are not integrated into the articles content. Ex nihil (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Of course, this does not forestall merge discussions, or any other normal editing decisons. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Oliver Fish and Kyle Lewis[edit]
This article seems premature as this new fictional couple has had limited screen time, nothing links to this article and any immediate need is unlikely. Press coverage about the storyline has primarily involved actor Scott Evans, and is covered in the character article Oliver Fish. I boldly redirected but was reverted. — TAnthonyTalk 00:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Press releases and promotional literature produced by a company do not establish notability. That the company exists is not in doubt, but there is not enough evidence of independent reliable sources writing about this company. SilkTork *YES! 16:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nirvaha[edit]
no news hits on Google News for this company, minor coverage appears in blogs. Fails WP:ORG RP459 (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Withdrawn. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Untitled Nancy Meyers Project[edit]AfDs for this article:
WP:CRYSTAL \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|