For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
The result was delete. tedder (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Content is not encyclopedic. Tomchiukc (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. I copy edited the lede then I reached the line, "The April Decca was created on May 2, 1977 in protest over the election of George W. Bush to office." The external links don't add up, and Google returns few results. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a hoax, the information that was removed may have been wrong but I've seen this band perform and while I can't attest to the accuracy of all the information, I can say it's a real band. The1Creator (talk • contribs)
|
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis contribs 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, user not familiar with WP:N guidlines. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis contribs 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable due to lack of any independent reliable sources demonstrating notability. The information is 4 years out of date and considering the edit history is unlikely to be re-written to resolve the problems of being an advert and lacking sources. The page has been marked as an advert and lacking sources for over 2 years. Ash (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable as no reliable sources back up any claims made on this page. The only sources quoted (that work) are self published blogs, and blogs by others. The page includes detailed personal biographical information that has no reliable sources that meet BLP including the names of his wife and children. The page has been marked as an advert for over 2 years with no signs of addressing these issues. Ash (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable actor from non notable productions WuhWuzDat 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm seeking help to word in such a way that article is not considered advertisement or non nuetral. somebody help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G1 Publicity (talk • contribs) 23:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 01:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Essay, reads like some sort of editorial. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this businessman isn't notable. Article was written by someone with a COI, but s/he made an attempt to stubify the article to be non-promotional when this was pointed out. Abductive (reasoning) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was AfDs for this article:
Non-sourced arbitrary list that violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a place for a miscellaneous list of stuff). mhking (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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 merge to Unification Theological Seminary. Although there is, oddly, no consensus as to whether the article should be "kept and merged" or "deleted and merged", there is consensus to merge into Unification Theological Seminary –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Non-notable page as this person's role in the church could be easily merged into Unification Theological Seminary rather than leaving a one line article. No independent sources establish notability and despite being tagged for improvement for over 12 months there is no sign of any advancement to addressing notability or any prospect of improving sources. This article has a prior AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Hendricks from July 2008. Ash (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Shifter (bicycle part). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Though the technology may be notable, this page is about a particular type of dual-control shifter by Campagnolo. There are no reliable sources demonstrating notability of this particular product despite being tagged as an advert for over 18 months. Ash (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. An article that's forever doomed to be either unusably incomplete, or unusably massive. Consensus here is that no form this article could take would make for a reasonable encyclopedia article. ~ mazca talk 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E1 Music is a distributor of about eight zillion labels. There is no way that this could ever be complete, and this is a very half-assed start to begin with. I know that they have way more than rap artists on the label. This is comparable to Sony BMG discography; it would become incredibly long and complicated if kept, and there is no precedent for having discographies by label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography of a business man. Sources do not establish notability as they are self-published journal articles. Any minor details could be merged into the more general page Young Living Essential Oils. The article has been tagged for improvement for more than 2 months with no sign of independent sources demonstrating notability. A highly critical link to QuackWatch has been left on the page. Note the previous AFD for the same person at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Gary Young in July 2008. —Ash (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Non-notable organization. The page has been tagged for improvement for more than 2 months with no sign of notability or reliable sources being added. The text is promotional and from a USA only viewpoint. Ash (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy close per WP:SNOW, nominator is welcome to take the original decision to deletion review if they feel the original AFD was decided incorrectly. NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
This page was unfairly declared no consensus when the only one arguing for the page to be keep the same was User:Geo Swan everyone agreed that this person doesn't deserved her own page and needs to be put to another page Link here to the previous discussion. This lady DOES NOT DESERVE HER OWN PAGE. The page don't say one thing about her life (except one event), her birthday, or her age. Fire 55 (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy deleted by Versageek under WP:CSD#G11. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable advert like entry. Nominated for speedy delete but template removed without comment by anon user on first edit. noq (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. For deletion: WP:WAX, WP:PERNOM. For keeping: WP:WAX, WP:USEFUL. This discussion was pretty weakly argued, so there is no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Another in a long line of discographies for deletion. If it was possible to complete this article, the result would be a long, useless list. Bsay@CSU[ π ] 20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @904 · 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nn website--Localteche (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Localteche (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nn websiteLocalteche (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was AfD moot as already speedily deleted. Non-admin closure. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nn website.Localteche (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD G12 - it's a clear copyright vio of http://www.dil.iitb.ac.in/docs/aAqua-SIGMOD.pdf. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep following withdrawn nomination. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically a short essay about the possibility of maternal influence on sex determination (presumably human or mammal). The article is not so much a summary of the existing literature as a blurb you might find in the weekend section of the newspaper. There is a whiff of original research in the sentence "Two references cast serious doubt on this simplistic assumption and a Web site presents some information contradicting the conclusion." (The web site is a personal web page containing four paragraphs on the subject.) Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 19:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was supposed to be a simple renaming of the earlier article "Who determines the sex of a child?" to make it more like an encyclopedia entry, but not being fluent in Wikipedese, the article disappeared, so I had to reconstruct it. As far as deleting the PROD label, that seems to be what I should do if I don't think the article should be deleted; I wouldn't have submitted it otherwise. It was my intention to point out that The Web, as well as numerous high school and college biology courses, conclude that the male determines the sex of the child without presenting any real evidence. This article, as it now stands, may not be any more than a personal essay, but I hoped that informed Wikipedia users would add relevant content so that it would evolve into a genuine encyclopedia article. Wikipedia just may not be the proper place for this, but I would like you to consider leaving the article in place for more than a few more days to see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousranger (talk • contribs) 16:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC) I would sign this if I knew how - Curiousranger.[reply]
|
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @904 · 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no sources that distinguish this from Cybersquatting. Cybersquatting is defined as registering domains in bad faith to profit on a trademark. Domain name speculation, along with Domaining is registering domain in bad faith to profit off of future trademarks, also illegal. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Domaining_(2nd_nomination). Magicalthirty (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn: Its agreed on that there is a concept behind cybersquatting. thats why cybersquatting already has its space on wikipedia. I don't see the need to add more pages. The concept of cybersquatting can be further explained on the already existing page.92.200.52.241 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Domain name speculation. Regardless of the many keep sentiments below, the sources provided to not support having "domaining" as a stand-alone article, but merely use the term is an apparent neologism to refer to domain name speculation. I am performing the redirect myself, and leave the merge up to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 20:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
Page is a recreation of a previously deleted article. First of all, it does not meet any encyclopedic standards. Uniquely enough, they removed the only actual news piece about Domaining which clearly defines domaining as an attempt by cybersquatters to rebrand themselves. Again, redirect to cybersquatting. If you look for news about 'domaining' the only ones who actual write 'domaining is not cybersquatting' about the practice come from websites like 'Domain Name Journal' and 'The Domains', clearly biased sources (basically blogs it seems) written by people who want to legitimize the practice of cybersquatting. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Domain_name_speculation. Magicalthirty (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as vandalism. --Barras || talk 19:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination for the IP editor who gave as reason on talk page "The article is about a fictional character whose parent article doesn't even exist." FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. ZsinjTalk 02:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indications of notability. Google searches find no indication of this particular malware. McAfee does not list such a threat. Prod denied. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy close and let RFD run course. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Previous AFDs resulted in redirect, redirect was undone and replaced with a spotty list. This label has a 50+year history and distributes a buttload of other labels; to make a complete discography would be nearly impossible, indiscriminate, and terribly overlong. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koch Entertainment discography et al. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk)
Non-notable assistant professor, single digit h-index. Deprodded. Two comments questioning notability already on talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 17:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy keep: this belongs at redirects for discussion, not AfD. I'll open a discussion there. Non-admin closure. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page appears to have been set up by User:Boyhere for the purpose of promoting the Comcast web site getallthefacts.com. See other edits by Special:contributions/Boyhere Sme3 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Football player who does not meet the WP:ATHLETE guideline because he has yet to play in a competitive match for the Hibernian F.C. first team. Insufficient sources to satisfy WP:N. Similar to the recent afd on Danny Galbraith, who is arguably closer to first team selection than Moyes. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 14:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability; other than imdb listing for some minor roles, all references are from subject's site. I don't see many 3rd party reliable source mentions outside of his hometown of Harrisonburg, VA. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some info to the article in the past month, so I like it of course. It is a pity that users like Ohnoitsjamie and freshacconci seem to have declared war on it lately. I actually LIKE a more inclusive ---more encyclopediac (sp?)--- Wiki. I like how, for instance, every last predreadnaught is listed. Why even Danton-class French predreadnoughts are here. As for artists, many civilians think The Art Book (ISBN 9-78014-836256) is quite quite inclusive ---lots of really obscure artists there. And yet Wiki beats The Art Book in my mind since the book excludes a lot of less famous but still major artists like Keith Haring, Judith Leyster, Félix González-Torres. Wiki also lists really obscure artists like Mark Lewis (artist), Ian Carr-Harris, Kazuo Nakamura, Lisa Steele, Terry Fox (artist), and so many others. This is good. I go to Wiki to learn new material, not just to review only what I already know. This article has been protected by various admins for over five years I think. It is finally getting better detail and is improving under more admins' care. Keep. Cramyourspam (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)cramyourspam[reply]
Cramyourspam (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Cramyourspam.[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game as it has yet to be released and the only source is a resume of an animator. Any crystal ball details could be merged back into The Chronicles of Narnia, if at all. Ash (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 23:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable memorial page. A single source to a notice of death and no context for a google books reference to a co-authored study in 1922 does not sufficiently address notability. Ash (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that the sourcing is quite good but because he fails WP:ATHLETE and because he's 16, which means it can be recreated easily, I have to nominate it for deletion. A few of the sources are just passing mentions and also there is nothing absolutely extraordinary about this youngster that makes him more notable than any other that hasn't made a professional appearance. Spiderone (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 14:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Memorial page has not addressed notability. I am not sure of the value of duplicating every entry in the "Hall of Valor" to Wikipedia. Ash (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep:This is not a memorial page and I am not duplicating the Hall of Honor articles, although I think there is some valid argument to creating articles about many of them. This person was 1 of only 23 Marines EVER to received the Marine Corps Brevet Medal (it was a Medal awarded to Marine Corps officers who received brevet promotions but where not eligible for the Medal of Honor. I only recently created this article and have more info to add to it. I also created articles for many of the other recipients of this award and I will be filling in data for them as well. Additionally, he was a Brigadier General when he retired which I think puts him into the Notibility category.--Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. references seem tangential Spartaz Humbug! 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable promotional page for website. Minor content could easily merge back into IPod Touch. Ash (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity site of non notable individual largely the work of a single editor who has done work only on this article. 2 sources are dead links and the 3rd no apparent relevance. Prod and longstanding orphan flag deleted by subject KenWalker | Talk 14:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, unreferenceable by extensive googling and book search. Also fails WP:NEO. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
| This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @722 · 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Verifiability: The only source given is the film's own website. I tried digging up other sources and looking for related items, but all of them lead back to the given source or to the pages on the theory it has as its topic.
Try IMDB !! the Film the Universe of Myron Evans its on IMDB 86.136.23.88 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sirs You will find the Film on Sale on MEDIAREV website as linked on the actual Wikipedia page and on Cinematic Website again as indicated on Wikipedia website. 86.136.23.88 (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Dear Sir The Film its terminated and out for sale !!! September is the date we expect the Film to be shown on TVs around the world !! The film can be Purchased at Mediarev now !!! as for Notability , What notability do you see for the Film the Big I am , or the Film JACK SAID !? They do not seem to get the same deal from wikipedia !! Is that fair !? What is notability !!?? some or the greatest films ever made are less known of the universe of myron evans !!! but they do have their place in history !!! The Film the Universe of Myron Evans has an important place in the development of science, since it offers a new view of the Universe !! irrespectively of its merit, the world has to know that its there, and if in time the conceptual idea turns out to be wrong, " we would not have been alone in throwing the first stone " !!! 86.136.23.88 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete!!?? Fails the GNG!!?? Myron!!?? Evans!!?? needs to learn what is notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Merge and delete. Despite the wide variety of bolded comments; every participant was amenable to incorporating this information into Chicken rather than leaving it as a rather sparse and inherently limited independent article. The main article is indeed rather long, but these statistics should probably be split out as part of a larger section if a split is indeed deemed necessary. Decltype (talk · contribs) is also correct that no attribution is required here as the article's sole content was composed of statistics taken directly from a source. Hence, I have the inestimable privilege of correctly closing an AfD as merge and delete. ~ mazca talk 21:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be an example of listcruft. Tckma (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Failed prod. Appears to fail WP:NOTE. Coverage in reliable sources seems to be blurbs or short bits not precisely rising to the level of "significant coverage"; lots of reproductions of PR releases. "Holiday" is a mere five years old, part of a literacy campaign from a former editor named Jeff Rubin (not Jeff Rubin), and not garnering the kind of coverage one would expect from a notable event. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This product is not notable and lacks reliable sources. This article was tagged as needing verification over a month ago but no independent sources have been added. The only sources quoted are the inventor's and the promoter's site. The term "Flexene" is a trademark, not a generic name for a material and there is no evidence provided to demonstrate usage of the term. Ash (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Largely self-published author. Appropriateness of article has been repeatedly discussed on talk page and should be brought to a wider audience. Keep reasons given in previous afd such as mention in album reviews on Amazon are not within policy. Peter cohen (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply] Delete as nom This author seems to be largely known for his self-published rock reviews. Although he has been the subject of an articel in the NYT, this seems to have been a flavour piece about this person who has a big website of his own rather than a profile of a persopn of lasting signifcance. In a previous discussion on the article talk page, there was mention of him as a recommended review source at WP:Albums. I have checked the project page today and he is not mentioned there and Amateur sites such as his are deprecated in WP:Albums#Review sites. However album infoboxes continue to be altered with insertions of this man's reviews e.g. the five edits today by this anon [8]. The removal of this article will make such additions stand out as redlinked. The previous afd received very few comments and reasons given such as mention on Amazon and someone thinking the nom was in bad faith are inadequate reasons for keeping per WP:Notability.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. It appears that the article needs a rewrite; also, some of the delete arguments are WP:PERNOM or WP:JNN. Moreover, after the rewrite, G11 no longer applies. Therefore, despite the numbers, I see a consensus to keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Product line or company with no demonstrated notability beyond its own press release. Investor-targeted promotional language suggests WP:SPAM, perhaps WP:PUMPANDDUMP. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. not meeting WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V for now - should be better only in Avril's article until the approach of the album release. JForget 23:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
This article is about a not officially confirmed and untitled album by Avril Lavigne. It consists of a track list only, that we can't even be sure about because the album isn't released yet. No sources are given and the author is known for vandalizing articles about Lavigne. Darth NormaN (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Person appears as not notable, though it doesn't meet the notability requirements. Third placers in Next Top Model franchises are totally not notable because of model's minor work. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete - encourage merge to article on Hungarian diaspora. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. The term "Hunglish" is simply not in wide use. It is not the same as Engrish, for example, which is in wide use, and which describes more than the problems of non-natives of a particular language in trying to learn English. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. see the other AFD above on the same album JForget 23:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another candidate for the WP:HAMMER. No title, only a couple of "confirmed" tracks. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan-rumour site: per WP:NALBUMS "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation" Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No RS, just an IMDB link. Mask? 10:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No external sources, it's written like an How-To essay, it reads like an ad for India, lots of weasel words, it's orphaned, and it's not suitable for Wikipedia anyway. It's just some story about how great web analytics in India are, but I don't see how India is any different from (say) the USA in this case. At the very least merge it into Web analytics, but I'd say delete it alltogether. DanielPharos (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy deleted A9, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song from non-notable album that hasn't been released yet from non-notable band. The band (which isn't Tatu) is described on the creator's talk page. Monads (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. redundant on the existant article - no need for a redirect from this title JForget 23:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article already exists for the subject but the title is so implausible (it's an error) that it's not reasonable to redirect it to Twilight_(2008_film). It doesn't meet any criteria I can see for speedy deletion though. Monads (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
A band that was created approx 20 days ago and doesn't seem notable. The only thing I could find about them on the web was results from blogs and forums Monads (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @721 · 16:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
not a notable institute and have no reliable source and third party coverage. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 09:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax, no one of this name is listed on cricket sources (Cricinfo and CricketArchive) which have databases of every first-class/List A player. PROD was contested. Jpeeling (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a list of the 100 best fights in the Ultimate Fighting Championship based on fan voting conducted by the UFC. WP:Listcruft --aktsu (t / c) 08:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be spam for a Norwegian Chiropracter Clinic VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Here is the google translate text:
VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable advertising agency. The article has already been deleted by User:Jac16888 under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion, and later recreated by User:Nemanjaz. Eleassar my talk 07:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No clear assertion of notability, very advert-y (and has been tagged as such since January). Does not appear to be notable at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that these articles are suitable for inclusion. That said, batch nominations are often detrimental, as it is impossible to fairly judge 20 articles in one fell swoop. Additionally, the articles were not individually tagged. Therefore, no prejudice towards speedy renominations of each individual article, but again, consensus here indiciates that they are notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 22 pages dependent on page San Diego Trolley[edit]AfDs for this article:
Hi, Anthony! How do you propose a whole group of pages for deletion? I have stumbled across a collection of pages that IMO can only be described as spamming. Could you take a look at this situation, and if you agree the individual subjects are not “notable” and not worthy of having a Wikipedia article apiece, could you maybe take the necessary steps to merge them and/or delete the minor ones? It seems to me they need to be looked at as a group, not as individual pages, but I don't know if there is any mechanism to do that. Here's the problem: When someone set up the article about the San Diego Trolley, in addition to the main article which is fine, they created twenty or more individual articles about individual trolley stops. Each stop is already listed on the main page, so the articles about the individual stops are redundant, and most of them are stubs. Here’s the list of pages I would propose for deletion:
And possibly also, although they contain slightly more content than the pages listed above: In addition, each of the three trolley lines has its own article: again duplicating what is at San Diego Trolley. And then to complete the spam, they created FIVE special categories for all these semi-worthless pages! And also two special templates - which in themselves were given their own category! The categories are:
I really thing this is spamming. There is no way all this stuff is "notable". A single article, San Diego Trolley, should be sufficient IMO. If you agree, can you take some action to clean house? Thanks a lot! MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
|
The result was Speedy Delete. Alexf(talk) 15:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No suggestion of notability. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable, self-promoting organization at The College of William & Mary that has little influence on campus and pretty much none outside of campus. Jrcla2 talk 04:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @721 · 16:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Not notable. Was a contestant on America's Got Talent that was knocked out in the first live round (8/5/09). Not otherwise notable, though that could change later. No recording contract, no charted songs or albums, nothing that meets WP:MUSIC. She's apparently best known (aside from AGT) for singing the national anthem in quite a few places, but that's it. Article has lots of issues, and may have been originally written by someone connected to Megia. She may become notable later, but for now, no. (This article was originally nominated for an AfD, but we decided to hold it off until she ended her run on AGT.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This young lady is relevant. She is obviously very talented and has a wonderful career ahead of her. Why delete her listing? You can't disagree that people have an interest in her, I did and that's how I've come to post my thoughts. With the gazillion of web pages out there about absolutely nothing, why isn't Thia's page worthy of Wikipedia? She has already accomplished what most of us only can wish, namely, to be able to sing, and to sing very well. Give the kid a break and let's recognize what she has accomplished at such a young age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edsa1986 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Chiropractic in Canada#Canadian Federation of Chiropractic Regulatory and Educational Accrediting Boards. SilkTork *YES! 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This organisation of organisations isn't notable. As its article says, it serves as a clearinghouse for members, not as a supervisory body, and nothing it has ever done has been the subject of a news report, at least according to Google News. The main organisation for Canadian Chiropractics is the Canadian Chiropractic Association. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to My_Girl_2#Still_My_Girl. Content is still in the revision history if anybody wants to preform a merge. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article directly contradicts the notability guidelines, not to mention there are no sources since the only one that's there is dead. Enter Movie (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was The multiple listing became difficult to manage as the discussion was leading to some being kept and some being deleted. Relisting would not help as that would only increase the potential number of conflicting outcomes. The suggestion to be bold makes sense. Redirect those that are agreed as the least notable, and relist individually those for which there is some doubt.. SilkTork *YES! 14:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated with:
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...." I like Dream Theater, but our articles on their singles catalog don't meet WP:NSONG's standards for separate articles. Notability is dubious for most, and their content appears to be a mixture of incidental or trivial details about the song, its video, and its release (we learn from Lie, for instance, that the pickups on the guitar played by John Petrucci in the video are green), descriptions of the song's musical structure (Home and Constant Motion, for instance, tell us about various time signature changes in the songs; readers who know what that means already know about it from listening to the songs, and anyone who doesn't know what it means is unlikely to care), and fancruft (according to Pull Me Under, a poster on the band's drummer's forum "recently stated that the [song's] abrupt ending was inspired by I Want You (She's So Heavy), a track from The Beatles" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Deletion seems appropriate. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The creating editors who are still active on Wikipedia have been notified of this AFD, as have registered editors who have made substantial recent contributions to the articles.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Chart info added for Pull Me Under (#10), Another Day (#22), Take the Time (#29), Lie (#38). I agree that DT has way too many song articles, I even commented on it, but it would appear nothing was ever done. Why every song on Systematic Chaos has a song, and yet none charted is beyond me. Those could probably be added to the list here as well, but the said songs that charted should be kept. blackngold29 15:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This thing of deleting articles everywhere makes me sick. I think they should stay where they are, and where they always have been. In Lie, for example, we all know that the pickups are green, but I didn't know it was the Steve Vai signature guitar, a guitar Petrucci never played live, but used only in that video clip. The different time signatures in Constant Motion is something that helps people trying to play the song theirselves. I like Wikipedia because we can always find information about the entire discography of a band, information about the creation process of the songs, CD cover arts... It's a complete source of information. I vote to keep everything the way it is, and if someone isn't happy with the content of the articles, then try to complete it! --Rodolfostanic (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CD Release Surely it is useful to include any Singles which were given a direct single release or EP of their own, rather than just a promo release. "Another Day", "Lie", "The Silent Man", "Hollow Years", "Through Her Eyes" and "Forsaken" fall into this category. "Rite of Passage" and "Constant Motion" are more dubious as they do have quite widespread promo CD circulation but are not official CD singles, only radio/video/digital. http://www.dreamtheater.net/disco_dreamtheater.php confirms this for older singles by only mentioning those with official CD releases, though for some reason Forsaken EP is not mentioned. As an EP, though, it surely warrants an article as much as "Change of Seasons" does. Information on song construction and video (green pickups!) is probably not useful but surely information on track listings and edits and suchlike are useful for catalogueing one's music. Encyclopedia Metallum (http://www.metal-archives.com/) contains track info (all that is needed for the articles I think) on not only the commercial singles but also the promotional. This article does, on a related note, also contain info on the ytsejam official bootlegs, which together with information from www.ytsejamrecords.com could surely produce a few useful articles on said official bootlegs. www.dreamtheater.net could do the same along with www.metal-archives.com for the Christmas CDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Athlon Duster (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything else to add to these articles. For other AfD's you may want to see Category:Dream_Theater_songs. A lot of stuff to cut out there TheWeakWilled 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment:
People should create some more useful articles theirselves instead of discussing what articles are "appropriate for deletion" or not. For all the articles cited here, there is significant coverage, most of them ranked on music charts, and there is enough material to make detailed articles. The articles are so detailed that we even know what guitar Petrucci used for the Lie video, and the color of the pickups. Reading Another Day, we can learn that the lyrics are about Petrucci's father. In Take The Time, using the information about the samples at the beggining of the song, I edited myself a very similar intro, so that I can use during my live performances of the song as a keyboard player. This kind of information is useful to the fans, and these articles don't infringe any rules of WP:NSONGS. I don't see why they should be deleted.--Rodolfostanic (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @153 · 02:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split made unilaterally from Troy (film) without consensus. WP:SIZE does not justify this split, and the creator seems to be unwilling to discuss it. Not usable as a redirect.Delete, since I have already merged back the material. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Consensus is clear in that the individual is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Arguments for keeping the article are weak and lack the support of relevant policies. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of any notability; cited sources do not support claims. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was already speedy deleted, author recreated the page. Abc518 (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep - encourage expansion and possibly renaming. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A misnomer for a very real phenomenon. There is no doubt that this sort of thing has gone on, recently and otherwise. However, I can find no evidence of camps that are specifically for rape, the entry itself says that this goes on in "a detention facility such as a P.O.W. camp." The sources cited also lend credence to the view that "rape camp" is a name for a phenomenon, not actual camps: one of the articles uses the term in scare quotes, another calls them "rape/death camps", a third refers to a village as a rape camp, and the "Nazi Exploitation Cinema" source is evidence only of an idea. The Bosnian war era concentration camps cited have the same issues. Keraterm camp, for example, was a camp only for men. It existed for 3 years; only in a brief period in July of 1992 were women brought there and abused. Again, it is not my intention to deny any history. The problem with this entry is not that these things didn't happen, but that the term "rape camp" is a misnomer. There have been rapes, but there is no record of a camp specifically for rape. Perhaps this is too pedandtic a point for such a tragic topic. The entry is also largely redundant to the title (in that it says little more than "rape camps are camps where rapes happen"). Suggest deletion or redirect to War rape or perhaps Rape in the Bosnian War. Barring that, a complete rewrite is necessary. Hairhorn (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact alone that you admitted that it was an idea is enough for this stub to stay. Maybe as some sort of linguistics stub, but one that exists to be read. Simply because something doesn't exist in real life doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. The Starship Enterprise doesn't actually exist, but it has its own page. And rape camps do exist. It's difficult to find evidence of a place used exclusively for rape if you don't even look, but Partizan Hall, in Foca, was used exclusively for rape of Bosnian women by Serbian authorities. Afterward, it was the first war crimes case based solely on charges of sexual violence. But by your strict definition, it doesn't count since it was originally a sports center. It wasn't built for rape, so it must not count. Rape camps usually start off as a benign place and then get taken over by war criminals who get drunk on power and stoop to mass, systematic rape. Rape camps can also be other kinds of camps simultaneously, just as a shoe store can sell socks. Just because your definition of a rape camp is too narrow doesn't mean that mine is a misnomer. Just saying that it is a misnomer doesn't mean much, since I provided evidence, books and links, not just my word. You brought up Keraterm Camp as a place where women weren't abused long enough, and also housed men. How long do people have to be raped before it qualifies? If the rape camp in question is also a barn that houses farm animals, does it still qualify? You're not going to erase the term "rape camps" from society by narrowing the definition until it can't be found in real life. Next, you'll say something to the effect of, "Well, such-and-such place wasn't a rape camp if the women didn't actually sleep there since 'camp' means that they spent the night (also, if you do use this, remember that a "day camp" is like a summer camp, but kids go there only during the day, and don't sleep there). If a house is infested with cockroaches, but also has some spiders in there, that doesn't mean that any roach-based nickname given to the house doesn't apply. Personally, I think that I was wrong with how strict I was with my definition. I think that it should be changed to any place where mass rape happens. It should include places like the Ng / Lake cabin where women were raped after the women's families were killed. It should be broader than war crimes, it should include places where a serial rapist operates. "(Fill-in-the-name) used the hotel as his own, personal rape camp." Saying that the definition is a misnomer is the strongest of the flimsy reasons to delete this article, which says a lot since it's still very weak. If the stub is flawed, improve it. Don't delete it. Wikipedia is a community project. The idea to merge this with "war rape" is unacceptable if the definition goes beyond war. Also, why merge it if it's not only a separate thing, but also a thing that you think doesn't exist? Why not move it over to the "exploitation films" entry? Also, why merge it only with the "Bosnian rape" entry when it obviously happens elsewhere, if it exists and you don't believe that it does? Obviously, there is some sort of other logic going on here, where you think that rape happens, but rape camps do not. I'm guessing this deletion request is fueled by some anti-feminist ideology, but that's just a wild guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledragons (talk • contribs) 02:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All that I can find is trivial mentions,. The creator contested the prod, but added two references. The GameBanshee link isn't independent of the subject and the second link is a reprint of part of the GameBanshee link. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleStuff (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Pucca (TV series). –Juliancolton | Talk 15:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NN television episode Falcon8765 (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A single episode of a TV show? Not unless it's particularly famous for some reason (like Lucy in the pie factory or Seinfeld's pouffy shirt.) Thumbs down!WQUlrich (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete as non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO and general notability guidelines. JamieS93 be kind to newcomers 00:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was PRODed as "Fails WP:MUSICBIO; only claim to notability is having won a non-notable award." An IP changed the rationale to read "SUCCEEDS WP:MUSICBIO; 'Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city'" which I am counting as a contestation of the PROD. My own search found very little info about the subject, and I agree that the award is not sufficient to establish notability. As such, I am recommending deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete The youth orchestra and the subjects involvement may lead to notability in the future. To date, the body of work does not appear to have sufficient importance. Stormbay (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @153 · 02:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to demonstrate notability as per WP:PROF OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Move. Moved to Comparison of data serialization formats SilkTork *YES! 14:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This term appears to be a brand name of THHC Lighting,[21] which may be a non-notable company. Based on Google searches of books and scholarly material, I saw no evidence that this name is part of the scientific nomenclature and I could find no verifiable confirmation of the claims made in the first paragraph. This article has been listed as an orphan since February, and has no references.—RJH (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @153 · 02:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
|
The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable person. The company which he claims to be CEO of has a total of 282 google hits. The other company has 763. Statements like "Shivam Parikh is a believer that You don't need a degree in computers to start a computer related business or an IT related service." makes it apparent that the article has been written by Shivam Parikh himself. The remaining article is also filled non-notable stuff about this person. So the article must be deleted. Amdavadi123 (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it odd that the person who asked for delisting - his contributions have been only focused for this entry. There is no other contribution by the user anywhere else. Sounds to me like judgemental issues. Reference:for user Id "Amdavadi123" 05:11, 30 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivam Parikh 05:11, 30 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyur Parikh 05:09, 30 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India (→India: adding 2 articles) 05:07, 30 July 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Indiahn (afd) (top) 05:06, 30 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 30 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyur Parikh) 05:04, 30 July 2009 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyur Parikh (starting discussion page) 04:56, 30 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Keyur Parikh (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyur Parikh) 04:55, 30 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 30 (adding Shivam Parikh) 04:54, 30 July 2009 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivam Parikh (creating discussion page) 04:41, 30 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Shivam Parikh (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivam Parikh) (top) Look at the time taken for each entry or access, all done in a rush. Let me clarify certain points - Dr. Keyur Parikh happens to a very well recognized cardiologist. The ACC award that he received is globally recognized as well as goes to only one person each year. ACC happens to be the biggest cardiology board/organization in the United States, which has an affiliation with the IMA (Indian Medical Association). Regarding, Mr. Shivam Parikh - the references provided are both substantial and certain - the comments of "dont need to have a degree" are in articles by the leading newspaper of India "The Times of India". If wikipedia officials are interested all the article copies (scanned with dates for verfication with the Times of India office) can be provided openly. Feel free to access the other reference points such as the Windows Mobile Community. Since XDA-Developers does have an open policy on number of visits it is fair to give leverage on this. Whether you delete or not, is the choice of the community at wikipedia. One thing is for certain, there are key reference points for both articles - references have a reason for being kept and maintained. That is to verify authenticity. However, a question and doubt remains on the aunthenticity of the "complainer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiahn (talk • contribs) 07:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. As argued, fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. That someone exists and has published books and articles is by consensus not reason enough by itself to have a standalone article on Wikiipedia. No prejudice against someone writing up this article with reliable sources to indicate the person's notability. SilkTork *YES! 13:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR (as a journalist and author). yes I can verify that he worked at the ABC and that he works at Macquarie Bank but there is a lack of third party coverage about this individual [23]. article has existed unreferenced for over 2 years...is this due to a lack of coverage? LibStar (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable music group that appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. The subject has not received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I did some searching around, and information was easy to find about this group. However, they are not widely known like a household name. They do have many achievements that make them worthy of mention, but I am not sure if Wikipedia is the right place to do so. It doesn't quite have encyclopedic merits to be on here. Mlh56880 (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Group does not meet WP:MUSICBIO standards. They dont seem to have been covered by multiple reilable sources, charted anywhere, or been signed to a major label. Furthermore it appears that the only functional reference present is to the bands own page so they seem to fail the broader wikipedia rule of verifiablity. Solid State Survivor (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @153 · 02:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she fails NOTABILITY.[email protected] (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete per WP:BIO. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable doctor mostly written by his son Shivam Parikh (Indiahn (talk · contribs)). All the claims to fame in the article are common to all doctors in the world and there is nothing that really distinguishes this doctor from others. Just writing articles in journals (which tons of doctors do) or meeting important people does not make him famous. The one award which seems important (the award from the Cardiology Association) is given to literally dozens of doctors every year. See this list of 2008 awardees. So the article must be deleted. Amdavadi123 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&term="Parikh%20KH"[Author] with only 6 entires but obviously subject to distortion etc. I don't have any easy way to tell if 1 of these papers was cited 1000's of times etc. I guess I'd think weak keep if you can find reliable Indian sources to something other than hard-core research accomplishments. One recent paper does claim to be first in man, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19527978?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum . It is too new to have gotten a lot of citations but maybe this was mentioned in popular press somewhere. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the above comments. I would mention that citation counts for my papers (LOL) seem to be low when happen to see them in various places. I only say that because looking through Scirus, I find many citations over the years. These tend to be in specialty low-impact journals but citing authors tend to be at reputable institutions. fwiw.Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge and redirect to Lift (force), per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of lift vector is comprehensively covered at Lift (force). The information provided here is either technically incorrect or duplicates what is provided elsewhere. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable journalist. Article references are mostly not about this person, with the exception of [24] which appears to be a blog, not a reliable source. My own search did not find anything any better. Apparent autobiography. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @152 · 02:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An unreferenced article about anon-notable basketball player. The subject is not included in the 36ers squad in either the Wikipedia article or the club official website. Even if it could proved that the subject was part of the 36ers squad, he still does not meet WP:ATHLETE in so far that he has not played a game in a fully professional competition. Mattinbgn\talk 00:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. The only arguments for retaining the article do not focus on the notability of this particular subject. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability Jujutacular talkcontribs 13:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only notable thing about this band is that, according to the article, two of its members won Emmys. Since winning an Emmy makes one notable, that means this band has two notable members, and is therefore itself notable, according to WP:MUSIC. Which is fine, but... I can't actually find any evidence that these guys won Emmys. The only references are to small newspapers, not online. Searching for the members' names or the show name at the Emmy Award Search Site brings up nothing; I can't find anything in the New York Times about it; the IMDB page for "Farmboy" lists no awards. Unless somebody can point to some verifiable evidence that they won Emmys, I think this should be deleted. —Chowbok ☠ 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of outsider musicians. Geschichte (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @151 · 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character. Only appears in a technical manual, but is never in any of the televisions series, films, OVAs, or novels. The assertion that this character appeared in an episode of Gundam Evolved is purely based on fan speculation and is not based on any reliable source. Has no affect on the series's plot line. Inappropriate for merger. Farix (Talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails general notability guidelines Jujutacular talkcontribs 13:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|