Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 29
- WMF draft annual plan available for review
- Voting for U4C candidates
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Purge server cache
The result was delete. JForget 00:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] PAIW
Non-sourced neologism mhking (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Maxamundo
Non-notable website. No reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Roblox. Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] David Baszucki
Non-notable person. The game is notable, but I see no notability for this person. No gnews hits. Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] MySims Underwater Fantasy
I run a fansite called SimOperations.com which specializes on The Sims series by EA so I have good knowledge of this subject. Electronic Arts have made no official announcment of this title, nor has it even been rumoured! [1] [2] The only other reference of this title is on the MySims Wikia which in turn has no citations or references. ConnorJack (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] V Drive
A version of this article was speedy-deleted as being advertising and two PROD tags were removed without apparent improvement. There are no references or sources to demonstrate that any of the claims in the article have any substance; a Google search reveals only references to a kind of boat motor that appears unconnected; no verifiability; this may fall under WP:FRINGE Accounting4Taste:talk 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was SNOW keep . Furthermore, a brief perusal of Google News shows multiple recent mentions, calling into question the accuracy of statements regarding searches for sourcing. As the book is a recent release, the assertions of lack of coverage are uncompelling and ignore the fact that there will be more mentions by the time the AfD was scheduled to close. Yes, the article was a POV mess when nominated, but that is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Catastrophe (book)
Article does not assert notability, references are self-refs and book website listings. Fails every criteria of WP:BK. Article was initially prodded, but this was declined with the reason "contest prod - book debuted at number 1 on NY Times bestseller list and is currently #9 an Amazon". However, online ranks and # sold are specifically not critera of WP:BK. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Larry Drown
Fails WP:BIO. I'm in favor of including major-party nominees for U.S. Senate who lose the general election. But losing a primary is different. In general, candidates who lose primaries are not inherently notable. Drown falls under that category. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep. Topic meets WP:ORG, sources supporting notability and background have been added since the beginning of this AfD. Please keep in mind, Google searches are handy for getting a start on looking for sources but in themselves shouldn't be cited for their raw numbers, given that a search item with but 4 or 5 hits leading to peer reviewed academic or steadfastly edited trade journals might show notability, whilst 10,000 hits on a MySpace member or online product could be next to meaningless. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Tekserve
After a search at Google News, only 4 passing mentions and 2 press releases were displayed. Additional references has been requested since April 2009, but, for lack of news articles that discuss the subject, delete. Alexius08 (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Patrick Colleary
Delete, both as creator of article and for, in retrospect, non-notability. [email protected] (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] E3 (text editor)
No evidence of notability, no citations to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of endorsements for Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race
This list was originally split off into its own article back in August 2006 when the list of endorsements was apparently unmanageably large in the main article, and editors could not agree on how to deal with the problem. Three years later, it seems pretty clear that this article ought to be deleted, as it violates WP:LC. Specifically: "The list was created just for the sake of having such a list," "the list is of interest to a very limited number of people," "the list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," and "the list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia." Since the main article no longer has the problems it had in 2006 and this article violates WP:LC, the deletion of this list article seems appropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per nom, adding the point that the article on the Senate race has a similar list. If there is some information we need to transfer from here to there I'd be okay with a merge, but I'm not sure that's necessary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merge if required) per nom and Bigtimepeace -Miskaton (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Suffrage Hike
How is this notable or memorable? I say that is it no different than any of the other myriad women's rights caterwauling that's been going on for the last several hundred years. No different than an article on "Molly's bra burning at the Bush second inauguration party, 2004, Salem, Mass." Sourcing seems a bit suspect as well. Rubbish. Torkmann (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Consensus needs to be based on policy not headcount. Policy is quite clear that notability is based on specifi references discussing the subject in non-trivail terms. In this case there is no reliable sourcing provided and notability has been asserted rather then demonstrated. I therefore see the policy based consensus here to be delete. (including atrout to Torkmann for dissing the Beatles) Spartaz Humbug! 10:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of The Rutles fictional albums
Unnotable list of fictional albums for a fictional band. Fails WP:N andWP:LIST. Only "sources" are a blog and a fansite. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Joanna Pickering
Non notable model, fails WP:BIO. Paste Let’s have a chat. 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was nomination withdrawn Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Traffic count
|
The result was delete due to insufficient amount of articles to justify a list. However, points to Torkmann for the use of "simian rampages". Smashvilletalk 21:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Chimp attack
This "list" was created out of an inappropriate disambiguation page that was being deleted. There is no need for a list this small and particular that will never be larger and the topic is not notable per se. Drawn Some (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was RESULT: Merge and redirect. Editors will have two weeks to find appopriate destinations for merge-worthy content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)AfDs for this article:
Yes, I know this has been nominated for deletion before, but it's been a few months since the last try, so let's see if consensus has changed. The fundamental problem with this article is that it is a POV fork. Yes, the assertions in this article are sourced, but that doesn't change the fact that this article is designed to lump all the negative things about O'Reilly in one place. O'Reilly is a very controversial public figure — which is why notable criticisms of him should be incorporated throughout his main article, not sequestered into a fork. Having an article that consists entirely of criticism seems inconsistent with the spirit of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. We don't (and shouldn't) have a Praise of Bill O'Reilly article, and I don't see a "criticism" article as any better. Yes, I know that "criticism" can technically refer to either positive or negative reception, but that's not how the term is used here, it's not what the article contains, and it's not the case for any other Wikipedia article that begins with "Criticism of...". In my opinion they should all be redirected or deleted. *** Crotalus *** 19:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:CRIT isn't policy, but it has useful things to say. "'Criticism of ....' articles/sections would seem to inherently advocate the critics' negative point of view," it warns. While there's "no consensus whether "Criticism of .... " articles/sections in general are always POV forks, especially if balanced by an article/section describing positive evaluation and influence. It also a concern that often these articles or sections quickly degrade into POV complaints or condemnation about a topic, known as 'POV magnets.'" It's unfortunate that the previous AFDs seem to have been battlegrounds with almost no engagement on the merits of the nomination, because there's a case to be made that this article should be deleted either because it inherently a POV fork or because in practice it will almost inescapably function as one. I'm not ready to vote either way yet, but to my mind this does look like a POV fork. Although NPOV problems aren't by themselves a reason for deletion, the question I think we should ask in such situations is this: if the salvageable material from the fork were in the main article, would I be inclined to remove it for violating one policy or another (paradigmatically NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE? If the answer's yes, a fork basically consisting of such material with perhaps some air blown in for appearances should be deleted. I haven't yet decided what my answer to that question is, but if you have, that should decide your position.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, criticism does have its place. Some of the criticism has been very noteworthy being mentioned on several networks, such as the Harlem comments. Others, such as Keith Olbermann, are not as noteworthy as he seems to be the only one on a cable news channel that is obsessed with O'Reilly. Now if they had a confrontation that the rest of the media picked up, that would be worth mentioning. I tend to go towards putting in more information than less especially if O'Reilly responded to the criticism and thus wouldn't constitute a BLP attack. People can then make up their own minds. I do find it funny how some of the people calling for the keep on this article have gone into a frenzy when I added similar criticism about people like John Edwards and other people whom O'Reilly has criticized. Then again, I could just be seeing things. Arnabdas (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. clearly promotional in tone and unsalvagable as it is. no objection to a neutral article being written by an uninvolved editor if the sources are there Spartaz Humbug! 19:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] ZenfolioAfDs for this article:
Non-Notable product with references being a newspaper review, a blog and two passing mentions on a hosting service and a page advertising something called Eye-Fi Jezhotwells (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Pretty Little Liars. ~ mazca talk 21:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Killer (novel)
This derivative stub is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article which already covers the series. Its author has created six stubs for related novels which include only plot information, and has yet to expand this article significantly with real-world coverage to assert notability (and seems unlikely to). She has reverted my attempts to boldly redirect, so I'm seeking a consensus on merging/redirecting or deletion. — TAnthonyTalk 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Merge - (Non-admin closure) -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wicked (Sara Shepard novel)
This derivative stub is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article which already covers the series. Its author has created six stubs for related novels which include only plot information, and has yet to expand this article significantly with real-world coverage to assert notability (and seems unlikely to). She has reverted my attempts to boldly redirect, so I'm seeking a consensus on merging/redirecting or deletion. — TAnthonyTalk 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Jeffrey Lord
Looks like a non-notable literary pseudonym. Tagged with {{notability}} and {{refimprove}} since May 2008. Only 2 sources, a personal webpage and a message board. Blargh29 (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. The arguments here generally circle around a subjective interpretation of whether this is maintainable, and whether this is superior to a category. In both cases arguments are split pretty evenly each way - no overall consensus to do anything in particular can be pulled from this discussion. ~ mazca talk 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of video games in development
WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS. Unmaintainable, Category:Upcoming video games exists. Would not be against splitting off the 2010 information to 2010 in video gaming. Otterathome (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Richard Martin (footballer)
Contested PROD with no reason given. Original reason for PROD was "Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional match". Also think that he fails WP:N, due to lack of non-trivial sources. Big Dom 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] DemandStudios.com
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to DemandStudios.com. Has some links "attempting to be references" but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Riddled with press releases and SEO "self-links to their sites, Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Re: WP:NOTABILITY - An encyclopedia article is nothing more than a description of something unique. Demand Studios’ way of generating content and topics is unique, as seen in the unbiased articles from outside sources. If one takes the time to read the articles from these notable press outlets, it is apparent Demand Studios and its parent company, Demand Media, are notable online platforms. 3. Re: WP:SPAM - This article is not spam, which Wikipedia describes as “abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately.” The article on Demand Studios does not solicit to its audience, since it does not say anything like “Come work for us.” It simply states its hiring process – which is something that makes the organization quite unique – in an unbiased way. It also mentions that only those qualified may apply – spam is not discriminatory. 4. Re: Smerdis of Tlon: The assumption that the article is “blatant advertising typically written in vague and glittering generalities” does not give any examples to back up this claim: a. “an online content creation studio that provides writers, filmmakers, copy editors, transcribers and proofreaders with freelance work” – Demand Studios could not be defined more simply than this. There is no bias, no generality, no advertisement. b. “a new media company specializing in distributed social media and content on the Internet.” – same note applies. Does not advertise or show bias. It is a simple statement of what the company is and does. Facebook could describe themselves almost exactly the same way and it would not be considered a “glittering generality” Emilynf1 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)— Emilynf1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Demand_Media_spam --Hu12 (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 23:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Independent Democratic Party of Russia
There is no such party in Russia.--El1604 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. A7, no assertion of notability, no sources Tone 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] T-media
A non-notable Slovenian company. Eleassar my talk 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Al Roach
Non notable athlete - fails WP:ATHLETE as a professional baseball player who has never played above independent leagues. Possibly notable as an author, but also appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. Majorclanger (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
any ideas on how to edit the actual article? thanks Mr.knowitall2020
|
The result was delete. BLP1E applies Spartaz Humbug! 10:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Scott Janke
This is classic WP:BLP1E. The man was a non-notable town employee until it was discovered that his wife had appeared on pornographic websites and the town fired him. Although the incident received media coverage, there is no notability beyond the single event. Even local coverage quickly dropped off, indicating WP:RECENTISM is probably a factor, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. In reality, he wasn't even fired for something he did himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible merge to the city's article? The Janke article could probably be condensed to 1-2 paragraphs and fit nicely into the much larger Fort Myers Beach city article. User F203 (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. A7, spam Tone 21:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] RR & CO.
A non-notable Slovenian company. Eleassar my talk 15:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. It is a snowball keep here JForget 00:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Murder of Eve Carson
Non-notable event once widely covered, but now lacking in historical significance to keep. Merge significant info with U of North Carolina and delete article. Veggy (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Gauge (bore diameter); NAC. POKERdance talk/contribs 01:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 10 bore
All other articles on Shotgun gauge/bore redirect to Gauge (bore diameter). In addition, the style of this article is horrid, really beyond repair. --DOHC Holiday (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Angry white maleAfDs for this article:
Article is clearly racist and the term AWM is derogatory much in the same way another term used to describe a certain minority is.
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] George Ponsonby (disambiguation)
Nominate for deletion This is an unnecessary disambiguation page and clutter. There is a hatnote on the primary page to the only other entry. The reason for the removal of the prod was: The problem is that both he and George Ponsonby (politician) were politicians. This means that the disambiguator for the latter is misleading. The proposed changes (including the "prod" on this article) might be appropriate, but first we need a better disambiguator for the "politician". Alternatively, a much more precise hatnote is required. Peterkingiron. I believe the hatnotes I've now added are quite lengthy and clear: AT THE PRIMARY PAGE: For the Hon. George Ponsonby (1773 – 1863), see George Ponsonby (politician). AT THE ONLY OTHER ENTRY: For George Ponsonby (1755 – 1817), Lord Chancellor of Ireland and member of the Privy Council, see George Ponsonby. I looked through the article for what the differences were before creating the hatnotes (though someone who knows these bios better may be able to improve them). Both were Anglo-Irish politicians, so George Ponsonby seems to be the more notable and thus is rightly at the primary page and George Ponsonby (politician) couldn't have any other disambiguator really, from my investigations. I think that the hatnotes are now detailed enough; perhaps more relevantly, there is nothing on the disambiguation page which is not covered on the hatnotes now. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was procedural keep since no valid grounds for deletion were specified. No objection to early renomination if the notability is challenged. TerriersFan (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Law Society (University College Dublin)
Why is this page being proposed for deletion? It is perfectly valid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio88 (talk • contribs) 2009/07/27 19:07:53
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Prasanna Hennayaka
|
The result was keep. WP:SNOW JForget 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Richard Graham (Northern Ireland footballer)
Plays at semi-pro level for last 9 years, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Also plays in fifth tier of English football, therefore failing WP:N ----Leagueofireland (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep the whole shebang. The issue of mergine can continue on the article's talk pages. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Springfield (IL) Cardinals
These teams are incarnations of the same franchise. As per some of the conversation here, these should be merged into the article of the current franchise, the Great Lakes Loons, with redirects for these five defunct teams. Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ševčenko's lawAfDs for this article:
This article has almost no content or citations, it is a stub. Also it claims to be a law, which is clearly not possible in the matter. if anythign it should be a part of criticism of history. Also who is Sevcenko, what does the source provided have to do with it, is this really a respected theory, because it is most certianly not a law. This seems like an irrelevant and fringe factiod. Ishmaelblues (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes lets move the stub to the Ihor Ševčenko page Ishmaelblues (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete - notability is not inherited and the article does not meet WP:RS and WP:BIO requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Billy Mays III
Billy Mays III has received no coverage in reliable sources other than brief mentions as a relative of his late father and a possible role behind the scenes in his father's TV show, PitchMen. He fails WP:BIO. Timmeh 14:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. Non-notable Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] A&A Global IndustriesAfDs for this article:
No claim of significance in my opinion. I originally requested a speedy, but the author used WP:OTHERSTUFF and cited Northwestern Corporation and Oak Manufacturing. Jujutacular talkcontribs 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Already deleted JForget 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Void Illusion
Non-notable alternative rock band, though the article has not meet notability requirements. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Carwinism
From my searches the only place I have been able to find this word in on the Carwinism websites. It does not appear to be a notable concept. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Swagman Restaurant
fails WP:CORP, hardly any third party coverag [31], nothing really notable about this restaurant. being burned down unless it got major national coverage doesn't make it notable, businesses burn down all the time. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fei Jing - Soaring Eagle - 飞鹰
"Very little is known about (...) this style" seems about right. The article includes no sources, and a quick Google serach makes me decidedly pessimistic about this ever changing. Possible WP:NFT, even. Ashenai (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am translating a material about this style from a book, published in Bulgarian language, that I referenced in the article. I can't translate this too fast, but I will translate a little everyday. KOBRETI —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Golden Triangle (Norwich). Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unthank road
Unreferenced stub about a local street in Norwich; no demonstration of notability, and includes a relatively significant portion of trivia. PROD declined. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Brescia Furniture Fire
as per WP:NOTNEWS, I doubt this got much coverage outside of Sydney. and probably none outside Australia. factories burn down all the time. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Greenality
Page is an attempt to promote a neologism per this link. Fails the general notability guideline. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wasi Shah
Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Although he is a minor poet and drama writer. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to List of Forgotten Realms characters. already merged so just converting to redirect Spartaz Humbug! 10:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fox-at-Twilight
Fictional character from a series of non-notable books by a non-notable author. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. After reading the article, I still have no clue what "Kiss Verification Methodology" is, so speedy delete as no context. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kiss Verification Methodology
Non-notable neologism. Would be spam but the external link don't work! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:49, 29 July 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 delete per CSD G3. NAC. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dandy Desmond
- Dandy Desmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, unreferenced, claims of notability appear to be a good-natured hoax. Prod contested by anonymous WP:SPA. Per Ardua (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Per Ardua (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, Desmond is quite a phenomena, these days here in Thuringia. Just two years ago they discovered manuscripts in a bookstore in India and brought them here to do some analysis at the universities library (ThULB). They are authentic and currently there is a lot of research in progress about the composer - publications will follow and there has already been a small conference just a year ago with some contributions about Desmond and his work - which is by the way astonishing. Anyways his contributions where (luckily "where") lost for half a century though he had no influence and is probably not worth mentioning in wikipedia at all. One could give the topic one or two years and then consider opening the article again or keep it and wait for further publications about the topic. I'm not sure. --91.43.126.78 (talk) 12:57, 29 July 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. I think the whole subject needs a meta discussion at the VP or listing at CENT but AFD is a poor location to decided on utility of the outline series of articles Spartaz Humbug! 10:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Outline of computer engineering
Completely unnecessary orphaned subarticle/list treated as if it's a parent article. Nothing here that can't be handled by the proper parent article at Computer engineering. Also, headers like "Essence of computer engineering" strike me as pretty POV.WesleyDodds (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was SNOW keep Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Trapper Keeper (South Park)
No sources to establish notability. — Dædαlus Contribs 08:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to List of grape varieties. Spartaz Humbug! 10:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Onaka (grape)
Onaka (grape) is not sourced at all, and the grape variety does not appear notable. Google hits once wiki mirrors are taken out seem little more than 100. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Climate Caper (book)
Unpublished non-notable book. Lacks substantial GHits beyond blogs and minor references. Absolutely no GNEWS hits ttonyb1 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. we have a consensus now. Spartaz Humbug! 12:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] -graphyAfDs for this article:
Pure dictionary definition with no hope of making encyclopedia article
This is a textbook case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is a dictionary entry with no realistic chance of recovery. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
((since its been updated further discussion about the articles utility after the change would be useful.in sufficnet discussion for a consensus given the changes so far Spartaz Humbug! 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)))[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Toadfish Rebecchi
utterly non-notable, unsourced 'article' about a fictional soap opera character; it does have just lots and lots of plot summary. delete. cheers, Jack Merridew 06:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was snow delete. Blueboy96 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kleeb
Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Child injuries solicitors
Blatant advertising for law firm despite removal of multiple refs to its websites and addition of .gov sources; biased, poorly sourced information not suitable for article or merger into other articles without considerable work, especially when source editor realizes his/her commercial links will not be included in any resulting article or merger. Flowanda | Talk 04:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep; NAC. POKERdance talk/contribs 02:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Absal
I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Chiefs
No need for this crazy list. All of the people on this list are "red lines" and do not merit an article in the first place. Torkmann (talk) 03:31, 29 July 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. Census-designated place. utcursch | talk 12:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sidhauli,Darbhanga
- Sidhauli,Darbhanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Small town in India. There are no references, nor can I find any meaningful hits on google. Notability is very doubtful, unless some sources in another language can be found. LeSnail (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @186 · 03:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep villages are inherently notable. Pzrmd (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Verifiable village, and is governed by a Panchayat. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 04:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, real places are notable. JIP | Talk 04:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep: Inherently notable as a real place whose existence is verifiable
- Speedy keep: The status quo of grographical places' articles is that all settlements that are verifiable are inherently notable -- Tinu Cherian - 12:05, 29 July 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 speedy keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Richard H. Sylvester
Simply being a police chief of a major city does not make one worthy of inclusion into this compendium. Not to mention what if if every police chief in history had their own articles. The subject has not innovated any useful changes in policing, and is not historically significant in the field of law enforcement. While many police cheifs who are notable and included in wikipedia have written books and memoirs, the subject of this article has written none. Torkmann (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Spectrum (comic book) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperion (Supreme Power)
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kim Benson
Fails WP:ENT. Only played bit roles in a few TV shows. Gigs (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] John E.S. Lawrence
Appears to fail WP:PROF contested speedy by Dpmuk Gigs (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Catholic University Law Review
Not a notable student group. There are no reliable sources that show significant coverage; all sources are self published. Was also written by a COI editor. Triplestop x3 00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] This is a notable student group, and at least as notable as the dozens of other student-edited law journals with wikipedia entries. This article is supported by stronger citations than many of those entries. Consider the following existing pages: Alaska Law Review, Albany government law review, Boston College Law Review, Chicano Law Review, Syracuse Law Review, Rutgers Law Review, Maine Law Review, and Duke Law Journal, among many others under the category "Law Journals." I fail to see the purpose of the category if Catholic University Law Review is not to be listed. Stout1070 (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Please see WP:OSE. Triplestop x3 02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but Catholic University Law Review enjoys inherent notability. Please see WP:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, before you respond. Stout1070 (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As found on the WP:OSE page: "Inherent notability While the Wikipedia community discusses the concept of "inherent notability", the concept is in limited practice through the use of precedent. As an example, generally speaking, any high school is deemed to be sufficiently notable for an article, but lower-level schools are generally not. While not a hard-and-fast rule, this is the status quo for Wikipedia inclusion and is consistently maintained through discussions of various schools, school districts, and their creatability and keepability (or lack thereof). Thus "inherent notability" is basically codification of OSE." Stout1070 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Insufficient coverage in third-party sources to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] B.J. Schaffer
Contested prod. Child actor with a rather weak assertion of notability, aside from a seemingly dubious claim that he guest-starred on Saturday Night Live. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting Things GNOME!
Prod removed. Nonnotable software, no indication of notability. I see no sources outside of the typical sourceforge sources, and more imporantly, no indication is given in the article Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Elliot Mason
Fails on WP:MUSICBIO. Hitro talk 07:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edited: Abromwell (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Weak Keep - Reviews such as these: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43] specifically identify the subject and his solo performances. The article can use better referencing, but the information fromt hese reviews would indicate there is notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Russians in Singapore
Cannot find any non-trivial, reliable sources on this topic in either Russian, Chinese, or English. The "best" sources I located were:
Not exactly the stuff from which we can derive a proper encyclopedia article. cab (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Steve Bertrand
Delete as per WP:MUSICBIO Only notability is a song that charted on Billboard, without citing which of the Billboard charts, and maximum position, but it was his band's song, not his as a solo artist. All of the material is listed on the band's article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. I will place a copy of the article in Tylerbahlai's user space so that the article can continue to be improved. If sufficient sources to meet CORPORATIONS are found, the article can be restored. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Number 9 Audio Group
Fails WP:CORP. Failed prod. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am having a hard time finding any more sources for this wikipedia entry to make it more legit. Since the studio has been in business for 25 years, a lot of the references (magazines, newspapers, etc...) that I would like to use simply have not made it online. I did reference a Canadian Musician magazine article, however, and will endeavour to find more articles/listings in well-established, published resources. What other resources can I use to further verify the studio? I will try to find more quickly, as I have no desire for this page to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerbahlai (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two new references, including an article published in The Toronto Star way back in the day (1993). Is this enough to keep the entry afloat? I will add more offline published sources later, I just need to find them first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerbahlai (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete yet I found an episode of Much Music's disBAND where the studio is featured, and have added a reference to it in the article. The reference links to the episode page, where you can watch video clips of the episode. Will look for more references. Tylerbahlai (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Tylerbahlai[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] San-j Sanj (xzecutive)
Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Web search returns little-to-no reliable third party sources and news search returns virtually nothing. SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy keep. Appears to be a duplicate nomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nabil Abou-Harb
Does not establish notability of the individual. Sparse IMDB page, few verifiable resources and a Google search for this person returns few hits about this individual. Most are about other Nabil Abou-Harb. HeatWillRockYou (talk) 3:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
[*Speedy close Article was kept July 21 [47]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. This debate needed more discussion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] House of Brothers
Band with just two EPs released and no real evidence of notablity. Fails WP:MUSIC - Delete Exxolon (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thani bin Jassim bin Muhammed
Non-notable person, Speedy declined and fails WP:BIO, but it doesn't meet the notability requirements. There are over 16,100 Google hits and nothing to find the article. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 3Way (web series)
Articles need independent coverage in multiple reliable sources in order to merit an article (see Wikipedia:Notability). Noisalt (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Salem (Days of our Lives)
This article cites no real world sources, the notability is questionable, and most of the pertinent information is already contained in other articles. Rm994 (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Rachael Stewart
Entrant, and junior winner, in a talent content arranged by a local radio station. This does not appear to be a notable award as required by WP:N. Furthermore, none of the external links mention her so fails WP:V. I42 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- ^ DOI.org
- ^ http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001378/137873e.pdf
- ^ http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/520/1/42
- ^ http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/13/3/243
- ^ http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?database=ged&lin=1&mode=e&look=new&sc1=1&sc2=1&nl=1&req=4&au=%20Lawrence,%20John%20E.S
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_29&oldid=1142644660"