The result was speedy delete G7. -- ais523 16:09, 9 October 2007 ( U T C)
No refs support claim of notability ("one of the web's most famous metasearch engines"). It's unlikely, given that the site claims to have been started only this year. Googling finds nothing at all about this site. Note: we're here due to likely contesting of other deletion tags. DMacks 19:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Hemlock Martinis 06:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article for non-notable child star. Fails WP:BIO WP:V No non-trivial, verifiable sources and no evidence of any noteworthy roles played to suggest that such sources - which I searched for and failed to find - exist. Ghits for this person are unreliable as Google can produce exaggerated Ghits for people who've done minor work in the entertainment industry. Credits are duplicated by imdb & yahoo film sites which are then repeated in different languages/countries. Message board, fan sites, LJ, or Myspace hits also inadvertently pad google results. In short, there is no justification for this bio. Bigdaddy1981 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Agree with Cap'n Walker that this looks like bit parts. If she becomes more significant in the future the article can always be resurreccted
3tmx
21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. John254 15:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Basically, I see this as British popular culture cruft. No reliable sources (except possibly the BBC ones), and no real assertion of independent notability. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable college a cappella group. There are no references to independent, published sources or even an unsourced claim to meet a notability criterion at WP:MUSIC. Only claims to notability are appearing on BOCA (which itself was deleted for not being notable) and winning minor ICCA categories. These do not amount to a bonafide justification for an article, as there is not sufficient sourced content which does not originate from the group itself (i.e. its website and the sites it uses to sell its self-published cds). Take it to Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 00:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not seem that notable, no cites. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- DarkFalls talk 09:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable college a cappella group. There are no references to independent, published sources or even an unsourced claim to meet a notability criterion at WP:MUSIC. Take it to Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 23:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Is "one of the oldest a cappella groups in the nation" not notable?
Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. What's the deal with all these college a cappella entries? Cap'n Walker 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Are you saying that if a group of street children featured in an academy award winning film wanted a wikipedia entry you would deprive them of it? Heartless. What if the street children could sing in harmony?
The result was speedy delete (G7, author blanked the article); deleted by TexasAndroid ( talk · contribs). — David Eppstein 04:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources (the linked company webpage doesn't mention his name), unclear notability, written like a resume - not like a neutral encyclopedic biography, basic biographical facts (like the birth year and place) are missing. High on a tree 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable and no references given. Pharaoh of the Wizards 03:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus. DES (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable church/location. ~ Wikihermit 04:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Little content and notability. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Okay, it's a book stemming from a TV show, that's nice, but I highly doubt the book itself is notable. Wizardman 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 15:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The page has one significant source - a book that was published by the creator of this artificial language (Amazon.com and library search engines are aware of its existence). However it is not so good with presenting external sources. Furthermore, the article admits that "the language has not caught on even within the constructed language community, and does not have any known current speakers". Therefore the notability of this subject is rather shaky. Amir E. Aharoni 14:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 06:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This group appears to be either made up, or non notable. When the article was created, it provided several website addresses, but each of those currently link to a domain registry service. That is, the websites aren't currently active. Various Google searches for "Darque", for "Darque hacker group, and for "Darque hackers" all turn up a variety of unrelated sites. That might not matter if this was an article about a 16th century secret society, but for a hacker group to have no web presence seems unlikely. It is also surprising to me that if, as the article claims, members of the group were questioned in over 3000 crimes, there isn't a single piece of news coverage that could have been referenced.
I am not, however, a hacker, so I'm open to the possibility that there is some sort of secret Internet that isn't accessible to us normies. I will be cleaning up the article regardless, to make it easier for people to read for the AfD discussion, and in the event someone can demonstrate notability and the article is kept. Natalie 22:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep, the nominator withdrew the nomination. Non-admin closure. KTC 00:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable, no references. PEAR ( talk) 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 16:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
controversial neologism, a google search seems to indicate that it passes WP:N but they all quote or paste from the WP article. decision making is part and parcel of Consensus even though the Suffrage system is not applied. If this is not so then there should be an article on a form of Consensus lacking any purpose in decision making, not Consensus decision-making. too bad there are already a few such as voting and polls. ephix 22:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: This AfD was not nominated in accordance with
WP:DEL (please refer to the
RfC for further info). This is a mature and well-sourced article. It appears to have been listed for deletion due to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and customs on the part of a new user (I am
assuming good faith on this). I have removed the tag from the article. I don't have the authority to close this page, so request that an administrator do that.
Sunray
19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy close - Restored customary redirect to Scouting in Hampshire#Hampshire 2007 after merge . ( Non-administrator closing). -- Tikiwont 12:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Merged with Scouting in Hampshire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyboy899 ( talk • contribs) 23:08, August 8, 2007
The result was Keep. Hemlock Martinis 06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No reliable published secondary sources indicating notability ( WP:CSD#a7), the only notability claim is a Harvey Award nomination but the Harvey page doesn't help the cause. Previously deleted on 2007-07-14t00:53:24z by VirtualSteve because "unsourced, nn" ( WP:CSD#g4). -- Jeandré, 2007-08-08 t21:47z
The result was Speedy close as an attempt to game the system. Metros 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable, the article on Alex Gilbert was already deleted PEAR ( talk) 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge & delete, pertinent info merged to Developing countries' debt by Euryalus — Caknuck 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This appears to be an essay of sorts with a bunch of opinion. The page was blanked by the author on June 4, but was restored as it was interpreted as vandalism. There have been no significant edits aside from the author (save an attempt at wikification). This seems to be deletable based on the content of it but it might be considered for a speedy deletion per author request. Metros 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep, apparent bad faith nomination. Objectively defined, finite lists that index notable information are widely accepted in Wikipedia. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply Statistics, recommend moving to Wikisource Spa toss 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
— Spa toss ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Even the name seems to be shouting it's a single purpose account. The editor's only edits have been to another AfD and an attempt at retaliation at this article.
The result was Redirect to Pizmonim. Hemlock Martinis 06:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has gone through two prior AfDs which both ended with no consensus. In the last AfD, four of the five some of the "keep" votes noted that the article was still in development, still just a stub, give it some time, etc. Well, it's over six months later and the article has gone nowhere. The reason for this is very simply that it's a non-notable organization, a one man operation with no credible third party references to speak of (as I demonstrated in the last AfD). Let's put and end to this.
DLand
TALK
20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability, Reliable 3rd party sources. It is a Forum that seems to be making pretty broad and unsubstantiated claims about its notability. Pharmboy 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Likely candiate for speedy delete now that I have seen this, and it appears it WAS speedy deleted prior, under a different name. Pharmboy 22:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Dictionary definition already transwikied to Wiktionary. TexasAndroid 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by MZMcBride ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete. No claim of notability; 11 unique Google hits do not support inclusion. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 22:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted via WP:PROD with a reason of "Only one independent source, trivial in nature." Now re-created. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 19:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Walton One 13:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Previous AfD ended "without consensus". I feel the article fails WP:N and WP:V and also smacks of WP:OR. The main source seems to be a story someone posted on Usenet. Alfa 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
As of 2007-08-11, this page has been completely re written to be about the myth rather than about Bethel's encounter. It has also been sourced to a third party analysis of the myth which takes a skeptical view. Thus any deletion nominations made against the old version (prior to a third party source being added) should not be counted against the new version unless they have been restated as applying post 2007-08-11. perfectblue 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all, no reliable sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 03:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable; Author has an apparent COI; images used within are copyrighted; appears to be advertising — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related page as it's a direct copy: — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm also nominating the following category for deletion - not appropriate as a category, and is actually simply a copy of the above two pages (I'm not sure how to handle this, because it's a category; I wanted to bundle it here. I've not yet put a CfD notice on the category)— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 19:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
And these images are all related - not encyclopedic and all related to the above pages. (Again, I wanted to bundle them here, but not sure what to do about the IfD for them, so I haven't yet added IfD notices)— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
doesn't meet WP:BIO, also WP:AUTO and WP:COI are involved GlassFET 18:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Completing improper nom by User:Rhun, nom reopened old discussion with "This text is almost entirely made up, and was already deleted here and on the German language Wikipedia, and has now been put back up. Read the previous deletion discussion below. Rhun 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)" Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep The new article has scholarly references provided, and external links are added to ICTY trial in which this specific knife, used by Pavelic government in NDH, was called Srbosjek, as well as the dr Bulajic, president of the genocide research foundation in Belgrade and one of the most quoted authorities on Jasenovac genocide referring to this curved blade, used at Jasenovac, as "srbosjek".
As seen in the previous vote (majority votes was keep), local people are quite aware of the existence of the srbosjek knife, which was one of the most memorable exibits in Jasenovac museum most school people visited on excursions in the 80s. The scholarly references include book by dr Nikola Nikolic, holocaust survivor from Jasenovac, a Croat and medical doctor - his book is from 1948, in book by respected historian dr Mladen Colic (his full name is Mladenko Colic, he is one of the foremost authorities about ustasha military, a titoist, works at Belgrade Vojnoistorijski institut, and his book is often used in academic teaching at Zagreb university) from 1973, and in book by Vladimir Dedijer from 1986 or so. There are also some mentions in the english books by foreign (out of ex-yu) authors in the 80s. In the books I mentioned, the curved knife is described, as well as its origin, Vladimir Dedijer mentiones one being captured by the partisans. He also includes the account of 50 killing methods by Nikola Nikolic in his book. The knife was an exponate at Zagreb city museum, and the photo of the knife was one of the most memorable museum exibits in the Jasenovac museum in 80s and Titoist era. The knife is widely known as srbosjek (the name is used at ICTY, in press in 90s, it was translated to english as cutthroat or something like that).
For your convenience, I here list the books:
the last book is also translated to English
Here is the part of the last book, which mentions the knife, and is in the part of the book scanned by google, so you can easily look it up: [ [13]] In English, there is a book by Howard Blum, Published in 1977 by Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co. ISBN 0812906071, which also mentiones the knife, and the part that mentiones it is also available from google books [ [14]]
Part of book by Nikola Nikolic are available online at jasenovac-info site. For instance http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/vecni_pomen/atanasije_en.html Notice the word "cutthroats" there. More parts of the book might be available online in Serbo-Croatian if you google it.
Finally, the photo and the sketch are available online from archive of Republika Srpska official site (most exibits from the old jasenovac museum were removed to Republika Srpska during the 90s wars)
http://www.arhivrs.org/jasenovac6.asp
the last two pictures of the srbosjek (exibit at Jasenovac museum, which I remember personally seing some 20 years ago, and also the sketch of the srbosjek knife).
You can notice that on the sketch, there is a writting "Grawiso" on the knife. The knife was produced by Solingen factory, which exist even today [ [15]], and produces various knives.
Here is a more extensive part of the book by Howard Blum:
http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/artukovic/aa0006.html
Also check out this discussion from the Serbian wikipedia: [ [16]] Hvarako 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep I think that there are enough references to keep this article. -- Milan Dinic 22:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment The article is extremely POV. It is difficult for English speaking editors to evaluate the scholarly quality and objectivity of the non-English references provided, but one gets the impression they are rather partisan. (edited to add) The article is ostensibly about a particular killing tool, but in a "coatrack" sense the larger article is about the views of one nation taht war cimes were committed against them by unspeakably cruel bloodthirsty cutthroat enemies. Many World War 2 evils and alleged war crimes of other conflicts have been written up not only in publications from and in the language of the country of the victims, but also in mainstream press and in books from publishing houses in other countries. A Wikipedia article could technically satisfy WP:N with no sources but books published in the aggrieved country and in their language, but in cases where atrocities, war crime, and crimes against humanity are claimed, it is helpful to add at least a couple of references from reliable and independent publications from the larger community of scholars, both to make references more accessible and to show that the claims have widespreaad acceptance. For examples of such articles with wider sourcing, see Rape of Belgium (where a number of additional sources are listed in the talk page but not yet added to the article), Lidice, Babi Yar, Nanking Massacre, Katyn massacre and Deir Yassin massacre. The presence of sources from a variety of nations is useful. Additionally, others here have stated that the subject knife is not a subject of many of the references. Edison 05:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 03:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Precisely 4 google hits, all referring to text. In over 20 years of business, never heard it used once. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus — Caknuck 00:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Long, rambling list of merchandise for a particular franchise. No encyclopedic merit indicated, and no notability asserted. Violates WP:NOT#DIR. Eyrian 18:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable hockey player Skudrafan1 18:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 16:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Recently deceased semi-professional skateboarder who doesn't appear to have done anything noteworthy. I can't find any reliable sources (or, indeed, any sources at all), so he fails WP:BIO. Hut 8.5 17:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There seems to be consensus that it needs cleanup, but I don't see one for deletion. - Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I am all for thoroughness, but this article is ridiculous. The stuff on here is what WoWWiki is for. Even if it isn't deleted, it needs to be toned way-way-way down – the page is 213 kilobytes long! Not only that, but some of the locations in this gargantuan unencyclopedic article each have their own articles (see Azeroth, Draenor, Darnassus, Ironforge, Stormwind, Orgrimmar, Thunder Bluff, Undercity). It also overlaps with the much smaller Warcraft universe article, which is supposed to be the "main" article, judging by the infobox. Sdornan 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I did some major restructuring and trimming. What do you think? Sdornan 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton One 13:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The article contains only impermissible content, and I do not believe it can be rehabilitated. It purports to be a disambiguation page, but jutsu is not a "term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article", nor a term that could appropriately be the title of any of the articles listed, contrary to WP:DAB. Further, the list of articles violates WP:DAB#Lists, because the listed articles are merely terms which include the disambiguation term. If the contents of the list are removed, the article will consist solely of a dictionary definition, in violation of WP:NOT#DICT. Finally, only the English dubbed version of the tv show Naruto uses the term "jutsu" as a noun or stand-alone term; in real life it is usually only used as a suffix in other words. Because it means "practical art" (or something like that), an article could be written about the "Practical arts of Japan", but, 1. that might be too broad (lots of things unrelated to martial arts also use the suffix jutsu); 2. members of such a class should probably each have their own article; and 3. at any rate such an article should not be titled "Jutsu", but should have an English title, such as "Practical arts of Japan", per WP:Use English. I recommend deletion, redirect to Jutsu (Naruto), or moving "Jutsu (Naruto)" to here. Bradford44 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
*Delete Dicdef/bad disambiguation and to link all possibly relevant articles would be a pain when the search will term them up if this is deleted. --
Nate1481(
t/
c)
08:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. After relist, consensus was adequately reached. Singu larity 04:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable e-zine. No claim to notability asserted in the article, and draws only 635 hits in the Google test. It's web site [www.capcityfreepress.com] doesn't crack Alexa, either. Consequentially 19:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was unanimous delete. Singu larity 04:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Tron clone released to the Internet in 2001. A Google test leaves 3,010 hits, the first ten of which are sites re-hosting a single-player version of the applet. Has not been distributed outside of the internet, and draws no third-party reviews or criticism. Probably because it's absolutely non-notable. Consequentially 19:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect into Peter Sellers. GrooveDog ( talk) ( Review) 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC) non-admin closure reply
Unreferenced fictional material without context, totally in-universe. Google gives only 100 hits, with insufficient possibilities to provide sources. Article was created by a new user. Shalom Hello 02:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge/redirect to Netzer Olami. Notability is not inherited, and arguments regarding the lack of independent secondary sources led to the close. Sourced information from the article can be merged into Netzer Olami, to which this page now redirects. MastCell Talk 20:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No long winded reason - just haven't found any evidence in the article or on the internet that the article meets the primary notability criteria of having recieved coverage by any reliable, independant sources ( Wikipedia:Notability). The notability tag had been up for a while with no changes or comments Guest9999 01:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
[[ Guest9999 16:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]] reply
The result was delete. Arguments pointing up the lack of reliable secondary sources establishing notability were convincing and weighted as such. If such sources exist but have not yet been prodcued, it could be taken to deletion review. Prior nomination, which closed as "speedy keep", did not appear to meet WP:SK criteria (unless I'm missing something). MastCell Talk 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Organisation does not appear to be mentioned by any reliable, independent sources - there are none in the article and I can find none on the internet. Previous nomination ended in speedy keep which appeared to go against consensus.
Fails primary notability criteria Wikipedia:Notability as well as organizations notability criteria Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Guest9999 02:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
If you remove all the fluff from this article, it boils down to the fact that its subject was a news presenter on a Russian TV station. News presenters are not notable as such, unless this is a major TV network (and perhaps not even then). Shalom Hello 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Malcolm ( talk) 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I know this article's only been up for a week, but I don't see any notability asserted anywhere in the article. Wizardman 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Walton One 13:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Local-access cable tv show in Evansville, Indiana. No claim of notability beyond that. NawlinWiki 16:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to the American Professional Football League. TerriersFan 02:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Prod contested by author. Prod'd because article on league indicates team is a fill in team scheduled only to play one game next season. Author contested prod on basis that they played three games last season. Well, to me this is not much different than an article on Tom Cruise's stand in or a Broadway actor's understudy who maybe only performed for two or three days while the actor had to go to a funeral out of town or some such thing. It is a non notable team that is there when they are needed to be and apparently at no other time. Postcard Cathy 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete — Caknuck 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy. Non-notable website. Fails to meet WP:WEB. None of the sources are independent reliable sources. Evb-wiki 16:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Questionable notability. Already speedied once and has been recreated. Marwood 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted under WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Probable WP:HOAX, stubby definition. — Coren (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable website, does not meet WP:WEB. No WP:RS, search through Google only turns up some forum postings. Speedy-deleted twice already. Leuko 15:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm very sorry to disagree, but Xpert Eleven is a game with 257,835 members (see front page www.xperteleven.com). The tone of the article could undoubtedly be improved, but I am appalled that people promoting the promulgation of knowledge across the world in many languages are driven to delete anything which in their eyes isn't "notable". I realise server space is an issue, even for a project as large as Wikipedia, but Xpert Eleven is not a passing fad, and deserves a Wikipedia entry (indeed, when I joined the game six months ago I was amazed it didn't have one already). David 86.212.29.149 08:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
A quick PS: I have finally become a Wikipedia member and carried out a brisk edit of the Xpert Eleven page. It is clear that further work is needed. Regarding notability, it is evident that the game has not received publicity in the mainstream media, indeed most Google hits are forum posts. However, I believe that this somewhat surprising lack of publicity is most likely to be due to the site creators being happy to let the game spread virally/through word of mouth, and it should be noted that 257,000 members is not an insignificant amount. Clearly, the site is not as well known as e.g. facebook, myspace etc., nor is as well frequented, but on the other hand has not generated sufficient controversy to be covered by the mainstream media, for whatever reason. Can I please ask that the entry be allowed time to develop and cross-reference information, I'm sure there are many others who will want to contribute to this process. Thanks. DERW1981 09:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. — « ANIMUM » 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Catching a baseball does not make someone notable. Borgarde talk 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Another Comment: For what it's worth, there's two votes on the Discussion page - a Keep vote (rationale: WP:INTERESTING) from a Fidelity IP address and a Redirect vote from Poemisaglock. I put a notice on the Discussion page to vote on this page. Sidatio 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable musician; all google hits on "Leigh Casino" seem to be turning up other notices. COI problems as well. The Evil Spartan 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton One 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was originally speedy deleted under Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. A consensus on Deletion Review nearly unanimously found this deletion in error. Given the delicacy of BLP issues, this article will be relisted at AfD and protected blank for the duration of that discussion. Deletion is on the table, as are other suggestions to alter the presentation of the content. Xoloz 15:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N, sources are questionable. Surname articles are supposed to be used for disambiguation; but in this case, Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for a person of this name. The article rather contains extensive details about the history of the name. The only traceable source is a privately published book, which probably goes under WP:SPS. I can't help the impression that somebody is publishing her original research here. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 15:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This game was rumored to be announced at the Tokyo Game Show 2007 by numerous sources (including this one at Kotaku.com) and it turned out that the original source of the rumor, Xbox360Rally.com, was given a false tip. They retracted the rumor. None of the games the source gave were presented at TGS 2007. "Jet Set Radio Next" does not exist. ~ Hibana 15:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The article asserts that "Joe Berry is a world famous entertainer", but 5 minutes on Google didn't find his name being associated with any of the works listed. Seems like vanity spam. Uncertain notability. Also, absolutely no sources for a biography of a living person. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, what on earth? Picaroon (t) 19:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable, no references PEAR ( talk) 14:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close per Deor's comment, Article was tagged for Afd for nearly 24 hours by an IP without providing any reasons for the deletion. Non-admin closure.-- JForget 23:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't understand why SmackBoth has marked this article for deletion. The article has been taggged since August 2007, so isn't it a bit early to mark the page for deletion ? -- ZeFredz 09:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This page is advertising, and Im pretty sure its fake. I work in a cell biology lab and have never heard of this. The article is of poor quality, and the science in the article is vague or just outright wrong. RogueNinja talk 03:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is on an upcoming album. There is one linked source, and my search of the lengthy .pdf failed to locate either the name of the album or the name of the artist (although there is an artist named "Monrose" and an album called "Ghetto Rose"). A google search of "Rose Love" and "Laila Richard Sadeq" came up with only Wikipedia and unacceptable sources. So the first issue with the article, in my opinion, is verifiability. However, even if there is a scheduled album by that name, I believe it fails the album notability guidelines because it lacks independent coverage and the artist herself may not be notable. I believe the article should be deleted. Moonriddengirl 14:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. First several pages of non-wiki ghits do not show the word used in this way. No sources in article to show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I still think that this article is fine but thats a biased opinion. And it's not a made up word, lots of people i know use it. If you can suggest a website that will be less harsh with critiscisms about its articles please suggest it here. groovybill 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was keep. Singu larity 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Low budget movie, no references, no assertion of notability. PEAR ( talk) 13:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep based on critical reviews in the Hollywood Reporter and Chicago Sun-Times, to name a few. I'll add sources.-- Sethacus 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced blurb/advertisement for a company with one redlinked product, created and edited by the president of the company, Topiarydan ( talk · contribs). Deiz talk 13:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable, no references PEAR ( talk) 13:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - non- notable performing duo, written as self-promotion by one half of the duo. Otto4711 13:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - prod removed by article's author, who is also the articles subject ( WP:COI). Subject does not pass WP:BIO and the page is self-promotion. Otto4711 13:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 23:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsourced & no assertation of notability Nate1481( t/ c) 13:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources, blatant advertisement. -- Nico 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable, no references, fails WP:PORNBIO. PEAR ( talk) 13:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - duh. DS 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
More Pottercruft. The article doesn't state its importance. It's just a list of alliterative things in Harry Potter that an editor finds interesting. Marc Shepherd 13:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. A bad title or POV content are reasons for renaming or cleanup, not deletion. Any moves or mergers are editorial decisions. Sandstein 18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Firstly, the controversial role of the Church has already been mentioned in the main article about the Rwandan Genocide. Secondly, the article Christianity and the Rwandan Genocide suggests that Christianity as a whole or Rwanda being Christian is primarily at fault for the Rwandan Genocide, by creating a separate article for it. The article furthermore mainly contains quotes rather than a balanced background story on the role of the Church in the genocide. The way the article has been written, and the fact that it has been separated from the Rwandan Genocide article makes its contents highly evocative. Its evocative nature has been discussed on the talk page.
Move to The Roman Catholic Church and the Rwandan Genocide. The actual title is unacceptable, and on this we all seem to all agree, but Im uncomfortable also with the alternative proposals that BT has made, as they link a bunch of distict organizations under a term that can be quite vague, "Christianity". I feel this article must detail the relations among one specific organization, unified to Rome but with no formal ties to the other organzations, i.e. Roman Catholic Church. What the Anglican Church has done in Rwanda has nothing to do with to Ctholic Church, and in the same way the words of the Archibishop are of no importance. This is my view, and also, I think it's the only way to avoid making a soapbox, but a serious analysis of how the Catholic Church reacted to the ongoing Genocide, studying it on four levels 1) deacons and priests 2) foreign and local friars and nuns 3) higher local hierarchy 4) the center, Rome, observingRome-,s behaviour after the genocide (there have been allegations of protecting priests implicated in the Genocide-- Aldux 14:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)) reply
Move to The Roman Catholic Church and the Rwandan Genocide - per Aldux. Baka man 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Was the company really sold for 748 bucks? NawlinWiki 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organisation: fails test of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Gordonofcartoon 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sandstein 17:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable, no references, link spam. PEAR ( talk) 12:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The text of the article is a near duplication of this. Given that there was no copyright notice on the website itself, it is generally assumed on the side of safety that the content is not free to be used on Wikipedia, and is hence deleted. Kurykh 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. A dancer who has worked with some notable figures but doesn't appear notable herself. Darksun 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article reads like a tourist brochure and is therefore better suited to WikiTravel ( [44]). Caniago 10:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Redirect to WikiTravel, due to the cohesion, style, and presentation of this article. It looks like it would be much more successful, suitable and relevant on WikiTravel. Acs4b T C U 11:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm procedurally completing this nomination. It appears the "nominator" Justlit thought that a notability tag meant AfD and created this page in the wrong way to say keep. There are now delete !votes so the debate should not be closed due to this error and I have added the AfD tag to the article. So the article may end up being deleted because somebody (a large contributer) wanted to keep it! Oh, the irony. PrimeHunter 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
-- User:Xxdisneyxfanxx 06:49, Jun 24, 2007 (UTC)— Xxdisneyxfanxx ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James Luftan contribs 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
-- miley hilary 10:49, Jun 24, 2007— Miley hilary ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James Luftan contribs 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Sock puppets?? 3tmx 11:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) This appears to me to be a typical example of people missuing wikipedia for promotion. Basically the argument that she may become famous is rubbish as we don't speculate about these thing on wikipedia. 3tmx 11:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Right, but i think the sudden creation of these two users needs to be looked into 3tmx 11:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Well i think it should be nominated. 3tmx 12:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
CommentThe other thing i'd point out about XXDisneyfanxx is they have stated they live in England, but also they have a box that says they live in florida. They created their user page yesterday so its not like they 'forgot' to update it. Even more suspicious. 3tmx 17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC) and "their" page was created 10 mins after justlit finished his edits to this page (go by this pages history - not time the first three editors have signed) reply
3tmx 18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was unanimous delete. Singu larity 04:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
As it currently stands this page is incomplete and largely unreferenced, whilst I don't think that this is a reason for deletion I do not thin that this page could ever be a good or complete article. It would have to be longer than the Guinness book of records and require almost constant updating over hundreds of pages of text. There are individual pages for certain notable records (such as List of Test cricket records) and I do not think it is neccessary to try and combine them all onto one page, possibly goes against WP:NOT#INFO. Guest9999 10:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was snowball keep Giggy Talk 02:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable indvidual, and a poorly written and sourced article. Mayor mike haggar ( talk) 8 Aug, 11.17
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This publication does not appear to be notable, according to Google [46]. -- Uthbrian ( talk) 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 23:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This publication, distributed only within St. George's School (Vancouver), does not appear to be notable according to Google [47] -- Uthbrian ( talk) 08:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable, unenclyclopedic content. Unremarkable defunct community newsletter with an unverified circulation of 50 -100. No secondary sources to support notability. Google search reveals only mirror sites. The article's author was involved in the magazine: http://www.infoanarchy.org/en/User:SqueakBox (see history state prior to todays date) 3tmx 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment -Strongly disagree with merge Contray to what the article author thinks the content is simply and completely non notable, and unverifiable regardless of whether it is incorporated into the page Totnes or not. If it is merged the issues regarding verifiability and notability are still pertinent. How is this newsletter culturally significant in any way??? Imagine if every single community newsletter ever published in every single small town thought it deserved a mention on Wikipedia. Then think about the implication that every single community group, village council etc would by implication entitled to a wikipedia page. Squeakbox why don't you give reasons as to why you think this deserves a mention on wikipedia (you had plenty of opportunity on the talk page but didn't either - maybe because its position is unjustifiable?)
3tmx 17:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- DarkFalls talk 09:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Our article on state terrorism tells us that it is a controversial term, with no agreed on definition. And this article isn't even about state terrorism, but about alleged state terrorism. That essentially means it's hypothesizing about a conjectural term, and it fails WP:NOR. Encyclopedias deal with facts, not allegations. >Radiant< 08:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Whether or not to rename it it is an editorial decision. Sandstein 17:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Another one in our series of allegation articles, this one is not so much original research as it is simply a news story sound byte. A convicted criminal stated there were mass graves somewhere; this was investigated, and it was concluded that he was lying. A newspaper might hype this up, but it does not appear to be an encyclopedia story, except perhaps as a footnote to the article on the murderer (which, incidentally, we don't have). WP:NOT a newspaper, and this gives undue weight to something found to be false. >Radiant< 08:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC) (if kept, rename as suggested below). >Radiant< 08:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was: Speedily deleted - spam. - Mike Rosoft 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
"A newly adopted process by which anyone … can self-distribute their media output". So new that Google has never heard of it. Spam / original research. -- RHaworth 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
non-notable sports person, no references. Dan027 07:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton One 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Documents anytime frogs are mentioned in anything. Wikipedia is not a collection of information, and it should certainly not be so poorly sourced. DurinsBane87 07:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Bountyheads in Cowboy Bebop#Asimov Solensan, which would not have needed an AfD. Sandstein 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources and, frankly, very poorly written - after some research one finds out that this is not a real person, but a character from an anime, which is already described much better and in correct spelling at List_of_Bountyheads_in_Cowboy_Bebop#Asimov_Solensan. High on a tree 07:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Sandstein 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
An article about a life coach based in Brisbane written by the subject's husband. No independent reliable sources, no hard facts establishing notability (the book was self-published at Trafford Publishing), mostly written in a non-encyclopedic advertising style. High on a tree 06:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete and salt, per multiple recreations. >Radiant< 08:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be WP:OR. Though the first cited source mentions the concept and the word "horseshoe" in passing, the article offers no evidence this theory exists outside Wikipedia, or in this form, or that the theory is notable. Has been deleted by AfD before. Weregerbil 06:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Previous editor started Afd; didn't complete process, restarting: Joke definition of joke regional term Michael Devore 05:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Radio personality of little note, apparently even in the Sirius world. Additional ghits: [53] NMChico24 05:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into InuYasha special items and attacks. If editors wish the merge target to be the film then that can be discussed and resolved as a post-AfD editorial matter. I selected this target, rather than the movie, since it would unbalance the movie page but I am neutral on any subsequent move. TerriersFan 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Completely in-universe. Appeared in a single movie and has no relevance to the rest of the series. No reliable, verifiable sources to confirm its notability. Delete or merge into InuYasha special items and attacks. Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 05:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Singu larity 05:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No independent sources (only a link to the band's purevolume page), notability not established (formed in 2007, so far published one WP on their own label). High on a tree 04:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are lacking sources too and these persons are only claimed to be notable as members of the band:
Regards, High on a tree 05:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Redundant to Category:Lists of organizations. The usual reason for having a list that duplicates a category is the ability to add redlinks and encourage new articles. This reason doesn't apply to lists of lists such as this, because list guidelines state that redlinks and nonexistant lists should not be added to these, so this only a poorly maintained duplicate of the category. Masaruemoto 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted — Jeremy ( talk) 04:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources, unclear notability. High on a tree 04:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy deleted CSD:A7. Nothing to see here-- Sethacus 04:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
AfDs for this article
The result was delete.
Singu
larity
05:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
Non-notable individual, only publications are self published. What he esposes may be a notable fringe theory but he is not a notable proponent of it. I believe this went through an AfD some time ago with a no consensus result. Bigdaddy1981 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Expired prod. However, since the article is a quasi-orphan and is uncategorized, it may not have had the visibility it deserves. The notion itself seems legitimate, although its importance in the field is unclear and certainly not highlighted by the article in its current form. I also suspect that the same idea may be also known under different names. All that being said, I abstain and hope from input by biologists... Pascal.Tesson 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Sole non-Wiki source on Google is a personal website called "www.geodakian.com", dedicated to promoting the work of Vigen Geodakyan. Tim Vickers 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Merged. - I saw a discussion on Tim Vickers's user talk page; looked up "Vigen Geodakyan "; read this; started reading Evolutionary theory of sex which said "The theory is based on the concept of asynchronous evolution and The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems"; I clicked on the link and saw that something Evolutionary theory of sex is based on was to be deleted; so I merged it to Evolutionary theory of sex. The next question , I guess, would be if Evolutionary theory of sex should be deleted or not. I don't know. I'm just now looking into this. WAS 4.250 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you all for such an attention to the article. I added notability and corrected grammar. That should close the comment #2 from Smerdis of Tlön.
Comment #1. “biological theory” The Principle is not a theory. Theory of systems is theory. The Principle can be included as a part of it. The application of it is not just biology. It’s much wider, for example in computers it’s RAM – operative and hard drive – conservative. “published in a journal for cybernetics research” – the concept is more about flow of information and system organization, so “by appropriately qualified people” – yes. After that the principle was mentioned in almost every article of Geodakian, published in biological, genetics, mathematical, medical, popular science and systems research. Do not remember any criticism about content.
“Sole non-Wiki source on Google is a personal website www.geodakian.com” There are more than 100 articles just by Geodakian listed on the website. You probably need to see the Citation Index for the other authors for citation. Search should be on author.
Now the good ones: “Expired prod”. – do not quite understand what you mean. Like the scientific principles have expiration date?
“the article is a quasi-orphan and is uncategorized” – agree. It should be categorized, can be combined or made part of another article. System may be?
“The notion itself seems legitimate” – agree. “Its importance in the field is unclear and certainly not highlighted by the article in its current form.” – hope I fixed that.
“the same idea may be also known under different names.” – possible, but for about 40 years I did not come into something similar. May be Yin and Yang concept?
The article is just a short summary and I can put more content if it will not be deleted. It’s a cornerstone for more than ten hypotheses (Tim, you should like it). Please help me make it better. Thanks again. Regards Sashag 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that this article is about a biology idea based on a theory concerning computational evolutionary algorithms. I added categories accordingly. WAS 4.250 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I wonder if a computer scientist fluent in both English and Russian could help us with sources and translation of terminology. WAS 4.250 23:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Let me explain the principle in simple example so there will be no misunderstanding that it’s a valid and fruitful concept far from “word salad”. Imagine a blind man. Without a cane or a dog he will periodically bump into objects, fall into cavities etc. Even if he does not move and sits quietly, a tiger can come and eat him. One day he can wake up and find out that forest is now a desert without food and water. Adaptive systems need a cane too. So, phenotype is a cane for genotype (this idea was explored by Dawkins), proteins – for DNA, sex chromosomes – for the autosomes, males - for females, left hemisphere – for the right one etc. Length of the cane is a variable dependent upon environment. More stable – short is enough, harsh – should be longer. Length of the cane in the case of sex is a reaction norm, for other cases it is dimorphism – sexual, lateral etc.
This is not the area of Mathematical biology. The way it is written – it’s a qualitative concept, not quantitative (which of course may follow). It’s not biology or theoretical biology (the principle covers social, technical, physiological, psychological and other types of adaptive systems). I would think cybernetics, systems theory or research is more appropriate.
"conjugated" – the Russian word is “сопряженный” which means – linked together like two horses in one carriage, interrelated.
“a theory that nobody except the author has paid any attention to” – not quite true. Simonov P.V. e.a. (1995) Журн. высшей нервной деятельности. (J. of High Nervous Activity), v. 45, 1, p. 13-17. writes: “Geodakian law is equally valid for phylo- and onthogenesis”. I’ll try to find some other examples.
On the other hand its true – theory does not have the attention it deserves. French proverb says: “If not you – (then) who? And if not now – when?” This is why I am trying to fix it. Please help me, because this project is huge and will need interdisciplinary involvement. New approaches to breast and prostate cancer treatment based on the theory (discovered in recent years) if proven valid can save thousands of lives in the US only. Sashag 17:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
If you feel it needs to be deleted, do it. I have no more comments Sashag 03:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, or at any rate no consensus to delete. Sandstein 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. Expired prod whose rationale read:
This strikes me as somewhat unconvincing and though I don't have much of an opinion, I'm sure many will... Pascal.Tesson 03:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT#IINFO and largely WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated people. Includes virtually any actor who has ever starred in an action film, and then becomes ridiculous, listing Gwyneth Paltrow, Olivia Newton-John, etc. Masaruemoto 03:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. After several rather thin arguments such as "Delete, Non-notable" or "Keep, notable figure" are dismissed, a sizable majority of editors who have discussed the issue of sourcing in detail conclude convincingly that the sources are too unsubstantial to provide notability. Sandstein 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
RE:Notability - how many of the rock groups with pages allowed to stand on Wikipedia would meet the test for "notability" that you are demanding of this doctor? Isn't the fact of this discussion itself prima facie evidence of notability in his field? Be that as it may, this user thinks it is healthier that websurfers looking for Dr Cathcart - or any other "alternative" practitioner or method - are not led to Wikipedia. There are plenty of primary scources out there which cannot be contaminated by dishonesty and/or ignorance. Whoever has a Wikipedia reference leaves hostages to fortune.
(talk) 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
There are full professors on the National Academy of Sciences who don't meet notability. This one falls far short. Djma12 Djma12 ( talk) 13:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
There is much evidence indicating that vitamin C metabolism changes during infections and this may affect the relationship between doses and adverse effects (Fig. 1; see pp 6-7). It has been reported that people with serious infections can ingest over 50 g/day of vitamin C without gastric problems (Luberoff 1978; Cathcart 1981).
we also have notability by association:
In one of his last texts, Albert Szent-Györgyi (1978) mentioned a personal experience: "Last year I collected a rather unfortunate personal experience. I broke down with pneumonia which I could not shake off for months, until I discovered that the quantities of ascorbic acid which I took (one gram daily) had become insufficient at my age (84 years). When I went up from one gram to eight, my troubles were over."
http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/laa/kansa/vk/hemila/dovitami.pdf We could discuss about Hemila's use of "gastric" instead of "intestinal". However, this remains a quote to the article by Cathcart having "BOWEL TOLERANCE" in its title...
Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
- There is much evidence indicating that vitamin C metabolism changes during infections and this may affect the relationship between doses and adverse effects (Fig. 1; see pp 6-7). It has been reported that people with serious infections can ingest over 50 g/day of vitamin C without gastric problems (Luberoff 1978; Cathcart 1981).
The result was Delete as a neologism without sufficient reliable sources. No evidence (as opposed to claims) has been presented that this is a widely recognized concept or widely used term. Whether or not megadoses of vitamin C are effective or not is not relevant. Demonstrably false theories may be covered where reliable sources exist, but here they do not. Eluchil404 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
There is much evidence indicating that vitamin C metabolism changes during infections and this may affect the relationship between doses and adverse effects (Fig. 1; see pp 6-7). It has been reported that people with serious infections can ingest over 50 g/day of vitamin C without gastric problems (Luberoff 1978; Cathcart 1981).
we also have notability by association:
In one of his last texts, Albert Szent-Györgyi (1978) mentioned a personal experience: "Last year I collected a rather unfortunate personal experience. I broke down with pneumonia which I could not shake off for months, until I discovered that the quantities of ascorbic acid which I took (one gram daily) had become insufficient at my age (84 years). When I went up from one gram to eight, my troubles were over."
http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/laa/kansa/vk/hemila/dovitami.pdf We could discuss about Hemila's use of "gastric" instead of "intestinal". However, this remains a quote to the article by Cathcart having "BOWEL TOLERANCE" in its title...
Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. — Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The article appears to contravene Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, item 4 "statistics".
“ | ...In addition to other sections of this policy, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:... 4. Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. | ” |
“ | Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. | ” |
“ | Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. | ” |
The result was Delete. (But I'll leave a redirect for each to Nashville...) — Scien tizzle 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Little information on any of these related articles, and the last appears to take most if not all from a newspaper. I don't know if these are salvageable or expandable, given that Nashville, Tennessee could simply be added to. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sean William @ 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is about three things, a blog, a book and the group of people. There are no sources for notability on the blog. The book does not meet any of the criteria for book notability. As for the group of people, that might be valid, but this article is almost entirely about the book and the blog. i said 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. — TKD:: Talk 07:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable homemade film with no reliable sources available. According to this the director was 14 years old when he made this film, so this appears to be a kid adding his Youtube movies to Wikipedia. Also nominating the related Weird Girl, Sé diferente, Hermosa Perversión, and Wonderland? for the same reason. Masaruemoto 02:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 07:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Given that there seems to be a consensus for deletion at this AFD, I also found this page, which covers a specific scholarship program. I am also concerned about its coverage, since the current page doesn't list any third party sources, and I wasn't able to find anything especially convincing about it. The most I found was some people having been described as winners of it getting some other scholarship, or brief bits about the endowment receiving more money. It might be acceptable to mention this on The Duke Endowment page, but is this any different from any of the hundreds of other scholarships that are found around the world? Some universities might have hundreds of scholarships like this. FrozenPurpleCube 02:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted per WP:CSD G5 - Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a POV fork of Plastic pipe systems, and the creator and only contributor to this article, User:Kickstartme is a confirmed sock (sleeper) of the banned user Grumpyrob (per RFCU). In short, Grumpyrob thinks WP is a professional reference where he can add pros, cons, and value judgments as well as how-tos on installing plastic piping systems, all lifted directly from installation manuals. Since he was not allowed to do that on the plastic pipe article, he has recreated his version with the title above. So it is a POV fork, copyvio, COI article created by a banned user. I would have CSDed this, but I would like the article salted as well, so I have sent it to AfD instead. MSJapan 02:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 05:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT#IINFO based on a non-notable connection. Having breast implants is no longer an unusual, or more importantly, a notable characteristic. This is no more encyclopedic than a List of people who have had facelifts, or a List of people who wear toupees. It's sourced, but who cares? The women who are specifically notable for their implants (ie Lolo Ferrari) should be mentioned in the Breast implant article. Masaruemoto 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — TKD:: Talk 07:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Person Lacks notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music) Xpendersx 01:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This appears to be either unsourced original research or an advertising-essay. The thumbprint image on the page has nothing to do with the subject of the article and appears to be an icon taken from the commercial website whose link appears at the bottom of the article. ~ Infrangible 01:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - Original research. -- H irohisat Talk 02:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete all g1, nonsense/hoax (or WP:SNOW, if you prefer). NawlinWiki 03:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Hoax - no evidence that this town exists. Ground Zero | t 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and salt, we discussed this last week already. >Radiant< 08:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Recreated page that was previously deleted DurinsBane87 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Probably a hoax. It was created by a single purpose account in 2006 and later wikified by a legit user, no activity since. Google points to a manufacturer of dog leashes. Targeman 01:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:OR-based list with vague and subjective inclusion criteria; "critically acclaimed, commercially successful or otherwise notable." How commercially successful should a film be to get added to the list? What does "otherwise notable" mean? Original research is needed to decide. Also redundant to List of German films, List of West German films, and List of East German films. Masaruemoto 00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. As I said in the proposed deletion: "This article has no reliable sources, and the data on the tower is speculative at best. Until there is more concrete (no pun inteneded) information available about this building, we shouldn't have an article on it." Powers T 00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 01:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non Notable Xpendersx 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I dont feel that he meets any of the following criteria:
The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.2 If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.3 Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. The person has demonstrable wide name recognition The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.4 Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products
Howarth yields 786 google hits most of which are not the computer programmer but a few athletes and other people. Hits regarding this particlar Howarth are not relaible, independant, nor substantial. A Lexis Nexus search of all sources from all available dates yields zero references to Howarth. Xpendersx
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable video game player. Hemlock Martinis 00:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this expression. And nearly nothing is said, save the long list of trivia. `' Míkka 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 16:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I had previously prodded this article because of dubious notability. My main concern is that this article has no lasting notability. It has had its supposed 15 minutes of fame and there really isn't anything else to say about it. Also, it's kind of funny that it even has an infobox military conflict. Aside from that, it isn't nearly as significant as any other internet meme.
Axem Titanium
01:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
I have withdrawn my nomination with regards to User:Krator's idea to merge the article with Kruger National Park. Axem Titanium 01:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply