The result was delete. Sandstein 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence for encyclopedic notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)), no independent sources. Article has been tagged for notability since May 2007, for missing sources since August 2006. No hard facts such as the year of foundation, the number of members, funding sources, size of the budget...
I am also nominating the following related pages (now redirects to United Planet) because of the same concerns (no evidence for notability, no sources):
Regards,
High on a tree (
talk)
23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge and redirect to New Rave. The old revisions will be accessible in the page history, and any useable and well-sourced content can be merged into the more established and better-referenced article. MastCell Talk 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable subject, original research based on a single self published source neonwhite user page talk 23:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
How are references in multiple web pages, a magazine and on a record releases (all independant) a single self published source. As Neon White knows nothing about this scene I question his ability to ask for the Nu-rave page to be deleted. User:Fluffski 16:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Likely this is a copyrighted recipe, anyway. Corvus cornix talk 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), because notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable. ...... Dendodge .. Talk Help 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NFF. Hasn't even begun filming yet; no references whatsoever. Ghits -- website, MySpace, this article. nneonneo talk 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect to MPQ. Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Bringing to AFD soley becuase of a PROD that was effectively challenged a couple years ago. Agreed with the original PROD reasoning: "An obcsure file format nested within another obscure file format" No notability, and gods help us if we write sub-stubs for every random three letter combination various games and programs use for their file types. Reso lute 22:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Sci-fi novel by an author without an article. Google brings up no relevant ghits for either the title or the author. Strongly suspect this book is self-published or through a vanity press, if it exists at all. Copyright status for image of book cover claims that it was uploaded by the copyright holder, so it may be self-promotion. — Gwalla | Talk 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I searched through multiple database archives in an attempt to find secondary WP:RS/ WP:V sources that either discuss or review "Dianetics: The Original Thesis" or "The Dynamics of Life" in any depth, but could not find any. Zero results in a search of three different database archives of newspaper articles. Zero results in an archival index of book reviews in InfoTrac. There were a few results in other books, but these were either in passing only and no discussion in any sort of depth, or simply a listing of related works published by the Church of Scientology. The only secondary WP:RS/ WP:V source I could find that discussed the book at all was The New Religious Movements Experience in America by Eugene V. Gallagher, who acknowledges that the work was a "privately circulated paper", a prelude to Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. But since it is quite unlikely that individuals will be searching for "Dianetics: The Original Thesis", there is no need to merge anything to that article (nothing to merge really, as the only source cited in the article at present is to a primary source affiliated with the publisher) - I see no need to merge to that article, but rather recommend deletion. Cirt ( talk) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
A balatant WP:CRYSTAL violation; not even planned for '08 release - goodness knows when, if ever Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable fictional character. May even be a copyvio, as the text reads a bit like the Games Workshop style. Graevemoore ( talk) 21:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pigman ☿ 05:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable organization with very questionable sources. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 21:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This person may be a talented teenager but they do not appear to have received the significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject required to establish notability and verify the content of the article. Guest9999 ( talk) 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sandstein 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete contested prod; one editor thought that this article, a duplicate of wiktionary's definition, is appropriate for the encyclopedia, despite WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. It's a dictionary entry, it gets deleted. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep as redirect. No need to debate for five days over what has been shown to be a plausible typo. Non-admin closure. Itub ( talk) 08:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn pesticide; only 246 ghits. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 02:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable who represents a non notable institution, Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mission, that has been deleted as not notable. Sources are questionable. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Apparently a copyvio, see [8], where the only substantial contributor also requests the deletion of the article. Redirected to Khmer sculpture. Sandstein 20:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
doubled, there is a same article already so please delete today Liguria ( talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete. There was no support for totally removing this material. Even the Delete voters implied that the material should find a home in one of the articles of the parent drugs. If coverage does move elsewhere thanks to the normal editorial process, the name Chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine could become a redirect to whatever article section the material ends up in. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This drug combination doesn't warrant its own page. It should be included in the chlorpheniramine article. See Butalbital for an example of a good list of drug combinations centralized on one page. See also Paracetamol/metoclopramide for a similar, but more notable, article about a drug combo (which also recently survived Afd). Fuzzform ( talk) 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Also, this article is what I'd call a "permanent stub". It contains all the information it will ever contain, so it's logical to move it somewhere else (and perhaps provide redirects for the brandnames listed). Fuzzform ( talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, based on consensus and because the article's WP:OR issues are not addressed in any depth here. Sandstein 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The article fails WP:N in that it is about a fictional spaceship that only appears in 1 film ( Alien, not counting a deleted scene in Aliens in which it also appears). In any case there is no secondary source material provided to support commentary about the subject as required by WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Its only substantial reference for most of its content is the film itself, and most of the article is blatant original research with much of it written from an in-universe perspective. All the pertinent information about the ship's concept & design is already included in Alien (film) (and Aliens (film) to a lesser extent) using real-world context in relation to the making of the film. Redirection is unnecessary as few articles link to it, and those that do mostly do so only through a template ( Template:Alien) so they would be easy to remove. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. This is an article about an album that is yet to be released. Although by a group that is apparently notable, this article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL, particularly as the title is not yet known. There is no reason to have this article until the album has been released and the title is known Fritzpoll ( talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#G7 (one author who has requested deletion) per Musimax's reply to Shawn in Montreal. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
WP is not a image gallery, and this fork is only used to facilitate the usage of non-free content. ViperSnake151 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The result was merge/redirect to SkyTran. Useful and well-sourced content can be merged from the page history into the SkyTran article. MastCell Talk 16:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Originally considered here, but then speedily deleted a couple of years later before winding up at deletion review, see here. Relisted here. Please consider the material presented in the DRV before commenting. Myself, abstain. Splash - tk 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. . A merger can be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article stub on a house in Northern Ireland that is rather old, but for which there is no indication of notability. -- Finngall talk 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Unencyclopedic list comparing various words and phrases in three languages. Do we need WP:NOT#LANGUAGEREFERENCE? -- Finngall talk 19:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Nintala ( talk) 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Keep, it is important to point out that Isan is a language similar to Lao by having a list of words. The section on Quebec French lexicon is no different. Also, this is the closest one will get to Lao vocabulary, as the Lao alphabet is not really supported by Unicode. As Ksero has said, it can be expanded. I have been building it up slowly. reply
The result was Delete - Selket Talk 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod of an unencyclopedic list. -- Finngall talk 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is a dictionary definition for a Persian, Hindi, and "African" word. All references appear to substantiate the fact that the word is used as a name. Google hits provide no information from which an article on a notable topic could be found, nor do I see any potential for expansion beyond just the dictionary definition. A common name used by several notable individuals might work as a disambiguation page (as with Hashim (name)), but this article as it stands doesn't work. My rationale for deletion, then, would be that the subject is unencyclopedic, and reliable sources cannot be found to document the notability of the subject beyond its existance. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - (non-admin) Peripitus (Talk) 05:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete racing team that puts together partnerships to race thoroughbreds, no indication that this busines is notable; fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to School District 38 Richmond. There are quite few school articles in this district like this, given apparent consensus, they can be boldly redirected and merged as well as necessary. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nothing to distinguish this elementary school from the millions of others out there WP:NOT#DIRECTORY of nn schools. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), because notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. There was a previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anurag kumar from october of 2006 with a no consensus keep, but nothing has been done to this article in the meantime to show that the professor is anything more than a run-of-the-mill professor doing his job. Corvus cornix talk 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Add to this nomination, his non-notable novel,
Recalcitrance (novel).
Corvus cornix
talk
18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Dear People you do not realize that Anurag Kumar Prof. and Anurag Kumar are two separate people one a scientist and another an author. So whay are you confusing both to them . Recalcitrance novel has just come out and is on sale on ebay. It is not on sale on Amazon just now because amazon requires books to be based in Europe or USA and the novel is as yet in India only. Whay the long discussison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aipbookslko ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Disco Inferno (band). Fabrictramp ( talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:MUSIC, no charting of this album and content limited to little more than a track listing. Delete and merge salvageable contents to Disco Inferno (band). - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and Redirect to Schadenfreude. Having two articles on effectively the same subject is content forking; the normal English word is clearly schadenfreude and there does not appear to be any difference between the meanings. Therefore a mention of this word in the article Schadenfreude is reasonable and sufficient. Some information is already there; editors may wish to add more, although respecting the fact that this should always be a minor section (in the manner of WP:WEIGHT). Black Kite 11:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
{{
R from merge}}
, which I believe is required under
GDFL since some new content has been merged there. Its meaning overlaps so closely with schadenfreude that they are synonyms, and it would be a violation of policy
Wikipedia:Content forking to retain a separate article. Article content about the emotion should be merged there. Article content that is merely about etymology may find a good home on
Wiktionary, but does
not belong here. -
Fayenatic
(talk)
21:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
reply(...) English speakers have been loath to recognise Schadenfreude as a fact of their lives. In the English language, we’ve taken so many other German words on board – words like winter, and summer, and swimmer, and apple and angst, kindergarten what-have-you. I find it very interesting that we have tried to keep the word Schadenfreude out of the English language, when it is so vital to human experience.
It must be said, though, that Portmann in his book always uses schadenfreude as a German word, that is to say capitalized and italicized. Then, the word that appears in English since the nineteenth century was not fully naturalized yet in 1999. Perhaps this is another reason why Evrik and others are still trying to replace it (1,5 million Google results) with the supposedly more English word epicaricacy (7 tousands Google results). However, since 1999 an important trend has gained momentum. Robert Matuozzi was expressing this trend in his 2001 review of Portmann's book:Aristotle ties pleasure in the misfortune of others to spite (he specifically decries Schadenfreude, N.E. 2.6.18).
A pervasive social and psychological feature of modern times, Schadenfreude has recently migrated from the German language to American popular culture, with the word and the dynamic occasionally cropping up in movies and music, folklore, and to a lesser extent in newspapers and magazines, either explicitly or in cleverly contrived subtexts.
-- Robert Daoust ( talk) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Summary of comments
-
Sur de Filadelfia (
talk •
contribs)
01:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
P.S. In the time I took to write this, Evrik retired. |
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G11. Stifle ( talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability; possibly advertising. Biruitorul ( talk) 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Selket Talk 22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Reads like an advertisement for healing waters in Covasna. Some text may be merged to Covasna, but the article should be deleted. See WP:PNT#Cardiovascular risk for a discussion on this article. nneonneo talk 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard (G11: Blatant advertising). Non-admin closure. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, advertisement, speedy tag continuously removed without explanation or attempt to discuss Jasynnash2 ( talk) 15:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability, no coverage in secondary sources or evidence that the company passes the notability guidelines for corporations and products. First page of google hits shows wikipedia at the top, youtube, the company's website, flikr, not much else (1710 total). Page is an orphan, has been since 2005 when it was created. WLU ( talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Seraphim♥ Whipp 00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a regurgitation of the plot of the various Bionicle stories from the novel and video game articles. As such, it is repetitive of that content with no out of universe information and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 06:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete, just plot summary without notability (i.e. independent, reliable sources).
Graevemoore (
talk)
23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, google hasn't heard of him. Anon editors remove any requests for references without comment. Weregerbil ( talk) 08:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested {{ prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Note: THis article was speedy deleted once already today and recreated. No need for AfD. I have restored the Speedy tag. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for wp:notability Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 15:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
An article about a murderer though whether they are notable enough is questionable. They only get 107 hits, the case seems to be unremarkable and not unlike many other such murder cases. Polly ( Parrot) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close, redirects to deleted articles are normally deleted, mentioned in other AFD. Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
A redirect page directing traffic to another worthless article deleted previous created by the author who created that worthless article. Yes, I am angry. __earth ( Talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Claims to be a think-tank but seems to be selling stuff rather than doing the usual think tank stuff. Been deleted earlier [32] but recreated almost immediately after deletion. __earth ( Talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgive Her... (2nd nomination)
The result was delete. Seraphim♥ Whipp 23:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn band fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Appears to have reliable sources - needs expanding, not deleting. I will have a look myself when I get a moment. Black Kite 18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Edit: the article already exists at Metaltown Festival - redirected there. Black Kite 18:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn rock concert Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete notability not established. I note that the BBC had a nice site for vote2001, including video and audio, so the net was not that bacwards back then. There is no mention of Mike Roberts as a key person of the Conservatives, and Mike Roberts profile shows exactly nothing in the "Political career" section. If User:JamesBondMI6 wishes to have it userfied just drop me a line at my talk page, please. - Nabla ( talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable politician. Article has been tagged with "Notability" several times, by different editors, and the tag removed by original author of article, with no notability added and some offensive edit summaries. There has been fruitless discussion on talk page. PamD ( talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
As to notability, there are multiple definitions of notability in Wiki. Getting the UK centre right to buy into the concept of gay marriage was a notable achievment in itself.
There is a significant amount of material referring to this individual, it's just going to take time to get hold of it, get permission to publish it, and post it up here - which won't happen if this is deleted. I've worked for a number of politicians in my time and have an excellent insight into the behind the scenes machinations. It would be good to make it available. ( JamesBondMI6 ( talk) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)) reply
The result was delete. MastCell Talk 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Article only cites his own website, one of his friends' sites, and a couple of articles he has written. There is nothing about him in a reliable source. His claim to fame is that he was a member of the Unification Church years ago and didn't like it. If this was any other church but the "Moonies" I don't think anyone would pay him attention. (Oddly enough it was a Unification Church member who started the article.) Borock ( talk) 13:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. There is also a strong case here for a possible merge. If anyone is so inclined, propose the merger on the respective talkpages of the from/to articles. Not an AfD procedure. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Article lacks any real world information. may fail notability per WP:FICTION Ultra! 20:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- JForget 01:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This page was previously nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge creation and while kept was reduced to a stub. No activity has taken place since, and there were no strong advocates for it last time so I suggest we finally kill it off. Snowded ( talk) 09:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. This was a close and contntous one as evidenced by both the volume of discussion and the reluctance of admins (including myself yestarday) to close it before now. The conflict of interest concerns are grounds for rewriting but do not speak to whether the article should exist in the first place. At least one editor !voting keep suggested that the article could exist but not as written. There is no reason to delete such an article unless there are BLP or libel issues.
The personal attacks both here and on the article's talk page are reprehensible, but ultimately irrelvent to the notibility of the subject. I find the notability argument weak, but sufficient. Likewise the !votes narrowly come out in favor or retention. I think, in the end, the result should be clear. Hopefully, both sides can come together and produce an article that does not have the problems of the current version. -- Selket Talk 23:08, 21 May 2008 (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}} . |
WP:COI, "An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager." The article about Mark Hanau is written and edited by someone saying he's Mark Hanau (see comments in user contributions) and using Mark Hanau's website, aimultimedia.com. Editor has also edited or created numerous pages w/subjects he has a close personal connection to like airconditioning, saturnalia, curved air, liquid light shows, John Vickers, and Academy of Live and Recorded Arts. WP:NOTE Article does not establish notability of subject as per guidelines "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:VER, claims not verifiable, some claims conflict with published accounts. Editor/subject uses [artistopia.com] as a source in this article and in other edited articles, but artistopia.com has Wikipedia as source. Before I deleted it, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=NME_Awards&oldid=209579910), subject placed an image of an invitation to an awards event and represented it as an actual award. WP:SOAPBOX, Aimulti/Hanau is engaging in self-aggrandizement I think by exaggeration, has claimed to have co-founded Paul McCartney's McCartney Productions, established a school (ARLA), won awards, and met "Berthold (sic) Brecht" with no support. WP:NOTMYSPACE, editor using Wikipedia to showcase himself. WP:PSTS, editor using primary sources without secondary source backup, such as a college prospectus to establish he "founded" the college 'tho secondary sources give different story. WP:OR, editor/subject scans primary documents and submits them via his company website, aimultimedia.com. WP:Living Many, like example Aimulti claims an actor is his daughter without source. RetroS1mone ( talk) 04:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I did so with my daughters full permission. She is as angry about this slur as I am. Aimulti ( talk) 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
You refer to RetroS1mone as 'she'. May I ask how you knew this editor was female? Aimulti ( talk) 15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Lets stop pretending. I know who you are. Keeponkeepingon is your usual handle and you have hounded me for years on Yahoo Answers etc, etc. I took me I while to figure it out (must be getting old). Feel free to deny it (as I am sure you will) but we both know what this is about. Quite frankly I don't really care one way or another now that I know the nature of this action. Enjoy yourself. Aimulti ( talk) 05:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I can only comment on the section of the article regarding band management and picture discs, which I find informative, well-referenced, and certainly notable enough to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of Mark Hanau's life or career outside his involvement with Curved Air and Saturnalia but feel that to delete the entire article is extreme overkill and that a less-heated debate would enable the rest of the article to be brought up to the required standard. RGCorris ( talk) 19:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
discussion moved to Talk - Corvus cornix talk 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Motives are irrelevant. The discussion here is whether or not this article meets Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Take extraneous discussion elswhere, it has no bearing on this discussion. I am moving the off-topic arguments to the Talk page. Corvus cornix talk 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Not only did I provide a reference (the NME 1971 awards issue of NME), I also provided a scan of the actual invitation. NME only invited people to the awards who had won one. It was not like a Hollywood event, just a small reception room, some press and the presentation committee. Tony Blackburn (DJ) presented the awards. I have requested a back issue (the 1971 awards issue) from NME and also asked them to confirm Mark Hanau was the winner. How much more can you reference something? Wikipedia only requires a reference and I provided that and more. How many Wikipedia entries provide such solid references? Do I need Mark Hanau's DNA on the award and carbon dating? This is getting absurd!
Aimulti ( talk) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Aimulti, I have deleted the personal contact information you provided. Whether you are Sasha Hanau's father, as you claim to be, or not, Wikipedia prohibits disclosure of personal information. Keepcalmandcarryon ( talk) 13:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Sasha is Mark Hanau's daughter. Your link does not depute that. It was making fun of the absurd assertion she is not. I will add copy of her birth cert., as soon as it arrives from England. Sasha was willing to have her phone number listed and to confirm this in person but Wikipedia does not allow that. Her birth cert. is the best I can do. I would hardly claim to be her father, on Wikipedia, if I was not. Aimulti ( talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Not only did I provide a reference from Kent Library naming the 'managers' of ALRA. They use the term for directors but also an image of the school prospectus showing Mark Hanau was Chairman of the Board (by law this information must be correct (Companies Act) and false information is a criminal act). In addition, every prospectus up to 1997 and all school stationary confirm this. In addition to that the company registary is public domain and can be easily checked. http://www.companies-house.gov.uk/toolsToHelp/findCompanyInfo.shtml
In addition every single issue of the weekly newspaper, Stage and Television Today (UK) has display advertisements for ALRA naming Mark Hanau as Chairman of the Board (from 1984 to 2001)
Aimulti ( talk) 09:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Provided three solid references (Newspaper and two University archives) showing that Mark Hanau's parents both worked with Brecht in East Berlin when Mark was a child. Removed line saying Mark met him (as this cannot be referenced) but who can doubt you meet someone who is working with your parents for over two years in a closed society like post war East Berlin? Aimulti ( talk) 10:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
ALRA is in LONDON, England. (Not. Montgomery County, Maryland). Simply check the public record on-line data base. I provided a link as a reference. Direct link. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/8d44684a52dcc89a24cdbbd0d9d3c8f2/compdetails. The information costs $1. I will buy it a post a link. Aimulti ( talk) 22:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I never claimed to have named Curved Air. Francis Monkman did. I simply claimed that I added Sonja (she confirms that on her page). Aimulti ( talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Does Wikipedia ban contributors asking for each other's support ? RGCorris ( talk) 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
COMMENT ON ABOVE. Your link shows no such thing. Aids Myth Exposed does not even have a member with that name. I checked. I also note Nocontroversy is yet another member who has only edited on the topic of 'AIDS' (except one small ski edit). Funny how everyone voting for delete has the same edit history. Aimulti ( talk) 21:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I note you (Keepcalmandcarryon) started the thread referenced above. QUOTE: -From: keepcalmandcarryon (Original Message) Sent: 4/26/2008 11:44 AM I'm sure y'all have noticed that, despite its claim to maintain a "neutral point of view", Wikipedia's articles relating to AIDS dissidence are biased (see for example the entry on Celia Farber). In honor of Rethinking AIDS day I am going to make time to do some editing and adding of needed references, and I encourage others to do the same! THIS WHOLE THING IS BEGINNING TO STINK MORE AND MORE. Aimulti ( talk) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
THAT IS A TOTAL LIE. Aimulti ( talk) 20:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
COMMENT. I did not ask this person to get involved UNLIKE the members of DAG Exposed (MSN Group) who have organized this campaign against me. Aimulti ( talk) 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
COMMENT. If this REALLY was about references than may I ask why the Mark Hanau bio with over 30 is the target of so much attention? Compare it to the vastly longer article: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Mullins_(musician) with not a single reference. This same situation is common throughout Wikipedia. Seems like a double standard or could the motive be as I have claimed? Aimulti ( talk) 03:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Hugh Brock provided that material to the library service for the sole purpose of providing a history of Peace News. I only referenced a few facts from the archive and the rest was from other sources. You are using every trick in the book to target my editions. If I don't use referenced material you delete it and if I do you still delete it. No article on Wikipedia is possible on this basis as you well know. I could tear Wikipedia apart using your criteria for deletion.
I don't care anymore what you do as I have decided NEVER again to contribute to Wikipedia or even look at it. I was suckered back last time but that was a VERY silly error on my part. With you and your little gang of thugs hounding me, I am wasting my time here. You are a really vicious and sick lady and nothing you do will change what I have achieved in my life (or am about to achieve). I now hope that this final article is deleted so you and your bullyboy/bullygirl buddies have nothing left to vandalize. In short, GO TO HELL. (Hope you get me banned for that comment - I am sure you can). Aimulti ( talk) 03:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to List of One Life to Live characters. Black Kite 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Article lacks any real world information. may fail notability per WP:FICTION. Ultra! 20:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Articles fails WP:Notable. SkyWalker ( talk) 10:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Seems to be a non-notable hobby of someone. Although it sounds like fun and a lot of work was put into it it doesn't need an encyclopedia article. Borock ( talk) 13:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Previously WP:PRODded, then recreated. The subject is a 17-year-old Swedish youngster who fails WP:ATHLETE (no professional appearances). Angelo ( talk) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
As per WP:CRYSTAL and it doesn't explain the topic. Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
On the other hand, Wikipedia is generally not the place to propose new business models or plans. Our requirements of " notability" and " reliable sources" are jargon here; but what they seek to guarantee is that article subjects not be new ideas, but pre-existing ideas that are well established enough to be noticed by disinterested third parties. This makes it difficult to suggest places where this might be merged, and I am not familiar enough with electronics engineering as a business to suggest some other place where your text might be more welcome. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established; no reliable sources used, and none seem to be available in searches. Frank | talk 11:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. This doesn't look like a real article, and the editors in this discussion had a variety of different ideas for how to fix it. I will make the article text available to anyone who wants to work on it in their own user space. WP:NOT suggests to me that the material may not be appropriate anywhere, but with a lot of work, someone might be able to create normal article content. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The page was speedy-deleted once (by User:Ganeshk), and Template:Prod was added to it before but removed later by the page creator ( User talk:Arunvats). I've gone through the article briefly, compared it with Thanjavur, and here's what I get:
As a conclusion, I'm suggesting either merge (somehow) into Thanjavur or delete. — Yurei- egg tart 11:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A1. Stifle ( talk) 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible speedy delete A1 candidate. The only thing I can find on the subject of the article is this which ranks them at 157 on a list on under 14 Philippines tennis players. This does not indicate the level of reliable sourcing required to meet the primary notability criteria or the specific criteria for people Guest9999 ( talk) 10:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Deep Zone Project. Notability, for being at Eurovision Contest, is not for each of the subjets, but for their collaboration. Also all the info about DJ Balthazar is currently already at the taget. Naturally with no prejudice for a later split, should new info arise. - Nabla ( talk) 21:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD:G3 (Hoax). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This article claims notability, but I have never heard of Colin berton or the Sydney Sand-devils. It may not be a hoax, but the claim to notability seems to be greatly overstated Grahame ( talk) 08:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The current article lacks a clear assertion of notability and has no reliable sourcing. I am not familiar enough with the subject to determine if it is a salvageable topic or not, but currently it's largely a coatrack for the various Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi fanatics that have been trying to spread the word via Wikipedia. (Article creator, Asikhi ( talk · contribs), is the "Press & Information Secretary" for Shahi's organization.) — Scien tizzle 15:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Even after discounting several single purpose accounts, we do not have a consensus to delete. Any POV and sourcing problems the article might have can be remedied by editing, renaming or merging it, all of which do not require deletion. These problems (if any) do not appear to be so fundamental as to require outright deletion despite the lack of a consensus for deletion. If the TV programme is perceived to be more notable than the event itself, the article can be rewritten to focus on the programme. Sandstein 08:03, 17 May 2008 (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}} . |
This is an unsalvageable mish-mish of an article, a pile of original research, synthesis and POV-pushing about an obscure incident near the end of the Irish War of Independence whose only claim to notability is that it was the subject of a controversial TV programme produced and broadcast late last year by RTÉ. I think that there are good grounds for believing that the TV program itself is notable — there is plenty of substantial coverage in reliable sources, including articles in most of Ireland's major national newspapers.
However, the article was created as an article about the historical event, and there are insufficient reliable secondary sources to support such an article. The sources available consist of two memoirs by people whose families were involved in different sides of the conflict, one transcript of any indymedia debate led by Pat Muldowney (of whom more anon), and a pile of primary sources published on indymedia. At no stage in the discussions on the article's talk pages has anyone offered any evidence that there exists any impartial, scholarly account of the events; all that we have is the pile of material generated by the protagonists, and suggestions that something more solid may be forthcoming in the future.
The existence of this article are completely bound up in the debate over the TV programme, and it is being used a battleground by at least one of the protagonists in that controversy. The programme provoked a heated debate in Ireland, not least from two individuals (Paddy Heaney and Pat Muldowney), who claimed that the program was biased, and lodged unsuccessful complaints with Ireland's Broadcasting Complaints Commission. [45] Muldowney also engaged in the public debate in the press, and wrote extensively about the TV programme on indymedia, strongly opposing the programme and setting out what he believed was a more accurate presentation of the history.
So far so good; there's nothing at all wrong with anyone participating passionately in a public debate. However, the wikipedia problems began when Pat Muldowney ( talk · contribs) began to summarise his views in a wikipedia article. It is to Muldowney's credit that he registered in his own name, but as a vocal protagonist in the public controversy, he had a clear conflict of interest and should have refrained from editing the article. Unfortunately, repeated requests for him to do so have been unsuccessful, and after the article was substantially revised by others he removed most of the additions.
Muldowney may not be the only editor here with an outside involvement with this issue. Other contributions, largely supporting Muldowney, have been made by Knockanore ( talk · contribs), only one of whose 15 contributions is not to this article or its talk page. Yet another single-purpose account is User:Feint, who has made substantial edits to the article but not participated in any discussions, and there is also Spleen&ideal ( talk · contribs). I don't think that I have ever seen so many single-purpose accounts at work on an article.
I tried myself to add some balance to the article, but apart from the difficulties involved in discussion with editors apparently uninterested in wikipedia policies, I eventually concluded that there not enough sources to allow an article on anything other than the TV programme.
As above, I think that there is a theoretical possibility that a properly-sourced article could be written on the TV program. However, the latest edits have removed nearly all coverage of the TV program, leaving this version, which is an appalling mishmash of original research and synthesis primarily written by an editor with a huge COI, and relying in large part on indymedia sources and on the accounts Alan Stanley and Paddy Heaney (neither of whom is a professional historian, both of whom is writing about their own relatives).
It may be that in future there will be sufficient published scholarship to allow a properly-sourced article to be written about the historical event, but as of now, there isn't. What we have here is a travesty of many wikipedia policies, and it should be deleted. If kept, it will continue to be abused as a vehicle for various POV-pushers with vested interests to promote the original research on which this article is founded. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No Deletion, No Gagging. I've checked through the article again to see if there is any valid reason for deletion. I just can't see it. The basic historical facts on which all sources agree are given and cited. Areas of disagreement are listed and appropriate sources for each side cited, without any indication of editorial preference that I can detect.
The sources cited are good. One of the main sources is the academic work of Philip McConway which is published by the highly regarded Offaly Historical and Archaeological Society, and is readable off their website. The cited work of Paddy Heaney is published by the same society and its affiliates.
The main sources for the opposing case are Alan Stanley's 2005 book (cited in the original article), and Eoghan Harris's October 9 2005 Sunday Independent article. Maybe the Harris article is a more WP-appropriate citation than Alan Stanley's book. But Harris's article is just a resumé of Stanley's book, and I think the latter should also be cited.
The list of citations in the article includes documents in the public domain (Public Records Office etc) which are selectively quoted in most discussions about the 1921 incidents. These sources are cited in the article without drawing any conclusions or implications from them – no analysis.
These sources have been placed in the public domain by the authority of two states – the Irish and British. It is reasonable to quote from them provided the quotes are accurate and balanced. One of the merits of the article was that, in effect, it quoted them in full (by means of hyperlinks) but without drawing conclusions from them. It is a mistake to remove those links, in my opinion.
There has been far too much ad hominem argument here. Knockanore ( talk) 09:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Knockanore ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
←If you read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion, you will see that it says clearly that "relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin". You have offered no facts or evidence; all you have offered is an unfounded allegation of a political agenda on the part of an established editor.
The main purpose of a deletion debate is to assess whether an article complies with wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it is a problem that your replies here do not address the lack of reliable sources on the incident itself, and consequent failure to meet the
notability guidelines. Instead of addressing those issues, you have chosen to claim (without any evidence) that I have some political ideology which is being brought to bear on the debate.
In terms of reliable secondary sources for the event, the closet we have anything which would meet
WP:N is two articles in a low-circulation local newspaper:
That's it. There is nothing else to establish the notability of the 1921 events, apart from primary sources and a bunch of unreliable sources
... but to establish the notability of the TV documentary we have:
Plus less reliable sources such as:
... plus the fact that on 18 April 2008, the television documentary The Killings at Coolacrease won an International Hugo Television Award (Gold Plaque in the Documentary: History and Biography category), run as part of the 44th Chicago International Film Festival (see RTE (18 April 2008). "RTÉ Wins International Hugo Awards". RTE. Retrieved 2008-04-28.)
Despite all this evidence, you and the other single-purpose editors such as Knockanore are arguing that the TV documentary is not notable, but the event is? Please, if you are going to reply, do take some time to read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SYN and then the notability guidelines at WP:N. That way you might have something to say about the deletion criteria rather than making inaccurate guesses about my alleged "political ideology". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. Deletion is for trivia, stuff like pop-groups no one has heard of.-- GwydionM ( talk) 16:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. The subject is important enough to induce, on a quick count, ten history professionals to involve themselves publicly in it. Two of them have published on the subject. (Regarding the separate issue of the TV programme, no history professional that I know of has defended it publicly, and five that I know of have publicly declared it to have no merit as history.) Pat Muldowney ( talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Pat Muldowney ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep.The suggestion that this page should be deleted is demonstrably absurd. Why is BrownHairedGirl carrying on a one girl campaign against this subject. It is somewhat obsessional. If she is so keen to celebrate a television programme, why not go off and start a page on the subject. I suggest she will have it all to herself - happy days for everyone, no need for this censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomath ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep While it is distressing than some editors are usning the article for POV pushing, that is not a ground for deletion. The article is well sourced and the comments from other posters in this debate show additonal sources exist. Edward321 ( talk) 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep There is a question as to whether the events described occurred or not. The RTE programme failed to meet basic standards of accuracy and fairness, leaving hundreds of thousands of people with an inaccurate view of history. This was done deliberately with a view to distorting, not clarifying what happened. Apparently, very lax or even non-existent standards of research ethics were applied in this programme. Now BHG wants to apply impossibly high standards to a well-researched and balanced entry that sets the record straight and attempts undo some of the harm done by that ill-advised programme, while condoning those that were applied in the RTE programme. It seems to have been forgotten by BHG that an encyclopaedia entry should strive as far as possible for the truth. The evidence and arguments for this entry are far superior to anything that has been attempted by the supporters of the RTE programme. An outsider can only wonder that some Irish citizens should be so concerned to conceal the truth about an event at a key point in their country's history that they should go to such lengths as this. This is a blatant attempt at censorship with the intention, one suspects of preventing the utter discrediting of the RTE programme and any subsequent attempts to revive it or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukobserver ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) — Ukobserver ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
It is proper to ask for as much of a degree of verifiability as the subject demands. If we met the standard that you are trying to maintain for this entry, there would not be much history - we certainly wouldn't be publishing some of the much celebrated heroes of modern Irish history whose standards fall so far below those of Pat Muldowney one wonders if they are historians rather than fantasists. I cannot see the slightest reason why this entry should be removed other than your desire to suppress knowledge of what actually happened at Coolacrease. If informing people of the facts of the matter is not one of the jobs of an encyclopaedia, I don't know what is.**** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukobserver ( talk • contribs) 09:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I note that there are some sources for the track listings of CD-1, CD-2, and CD-3, at Amazon.com. But no mention to the said track. Backstreet Boys "For the Fans" kept, but I edited it accordingly and tagged for notability anyway - Nabla ( talk) 22:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No notability listed in the article, or existing in reality TheHYPO ( talk) 07:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, this article should be deleted because it does not have any references and may contain original research. Also, other rooms in Club Penguin do not have their own Wikipedia article. Vinni3 ( talk) 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Only citations are from blogs and other user-generated content. Also has COI issues and appears to veer dangerously close to advertising. Black Kite 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Almost added a speedy tag for non-notable web, but couldn't quite be sure. All google hits seem to be blogs. FCSundae ∨☃ ( talk) 06:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily kept. Nomination withdrawn with no delete opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a lot more like an essay than an encyclopaedia entry, and I cannot think of how this could be rephrased to be suitable. Also, there are quite a lot of advertising statements and WP:OR/unreferenced claims - also lots of neologisms like 'Power Gamer' and 'Hotshot'. Very good intentions, it would seem, but it certainly does not fulfil inclusion criteria. asenine say what? 05:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G3. Deliberate hoaxes are vandalism. Stifle ( talk) 08:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about author's made up soap opera. After numerous warnings about posting about his soap opera stuff among the reference desks and making vanity articles, he still persists on doing it. Here's another article made with similar circumstances. -- Ouzo ( talk) 05:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Appears to meet WP:LIST, and would be less useful as a category; this is the correct way to present the material. It's quite well researched and written, could do with some citations though. Black Kite 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep, how would I know where to look if I want to know which albums have hidden tracks without this article? Not all of the albums on this page have pages of their own. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) ( talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
A very broad, essentially endless list. Many albums have hidden tracks, so it's not particularly special. This could perhaps be turned into a category. Spellcast ( talk) 04:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Tried to get this deleted before on an en-mass AFD, but it managed to sneak by as part of the group. PRODing apparently isn't allowed now, so lets just rid of it once and for all. Note there has been no improvement to this article or its sub-articles for a year since it was saved. Bulldog123 ( talk) 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
(
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Yet another OR Essay. LegoTech·( t)·( c) 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence for encyclopedic notability (see WP:COMPANY). The article spends a lot of time praising the virtues of this young company, but fails to mention any "hard facts" like the number of employees, revenue or profits. High on a tree ( talk) 03:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of Strawberry Shortcake characters. The List of Strawberry Shortcake fillies claims a close connection between each filly and each character, so there is a benefit to the reader if these articles are merged. Wikipedia:Article_size#Technical_issues says the 32K limit, while strongly recommended, is no longer a hard and fast rule so this should not be an obstacle to merging. Fabrictramp ( talk) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply
List of non-notable characters in the Strawberry Shortcake series. Sources aren't all that hot, and I doubt any good ones exist. I'm tempted to call this fancruft, even. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is about a fictional character that appears only in one film and is not notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. The article lacks any reliable secondary sources (it references only the film itself), and it is unlikely that any suitable secondary sources could be found to support an independent article about this character or indicate the character's notability. The article consists mainly of a direct copy of the "Plot" section from Alien vs. Predator (film), and all the significant information about the character is already covered in that article and in List of characters in the Alien vs. Predator series. -- IllaZilla ( talk) 03:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Jc37 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ( G11: Blatant advertising) at 03:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC). cab ( talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I can't seem find any reliable references for this organization to verify the information in it, or to establish notability. There is this, but I'm not sure if they're talking about the same group. Plus, they don't look reliable. Weakly do I nominate this article, and would withdraw if I could find any reliable sources. Wakanda's Black Panther! ♠/ ♦ 03:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that these lists are redundant to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, which provides an appropriate level of coverage in view of the lack of secondary sources about the characters at issue. Sandstein 07:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Let's put it this way: There has been many mentions of the usefulness of this article, and whether or not it should exist, so I figured nominating it for deletion would attract some attention, since deletion is basically what these discussions are about. Here is the problem: This is an article that devotes three or more paragraphs to secondary characters in a TV Show, some of which have only appeared once or twice. These characters are already described in List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, and do not deserve pages upon pages of useless information about them. In addition, this is literally the ONLY "major secondary characters" article in existence. Every other TV show article has one list of characters and sometimes separate articles for the main characters. The list is non-notable, is completely in-universe, and is sure to have a little bit of POV in there too. — Parent5446 ( t n e l) 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating:
[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] Not sure if this counts for much, if at all, but that's what a small amount of digging found me. I say that if this page is deleted, then a small amount of detail should be added on the character list page such as: "Long Feng was the head of Ba Sing Se's Dai Li force. He frequently antagonized the group during their stay in Ba Sing Se by preventing them from speaking to the king or rescuing Appa, as well as killing Jet. He eventually makes a deal with Azula that causes the take over of Ba Sing Se and at this point surrenders to her and loses control of the Dai Li." Not as short as I would like, but better than the current page. Any thoughts? SkepticBanner ( talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted per A7 by Ohnoitsjamie. asenine say what? 06:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Polly ( Parrot) 02:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Creative professional is the category in which Mr. Tritt does qualify, refereence the duely noted and listed critical acclaim in the article as it currently exists. Unless you intend to hide behind an interpretation of the definition of the word 'significant.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.10.137.232 ( talk)
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence for encyclopedic notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (music)). Congratulations on receiving the "Bronze SU STARS award", but it has to be pointed out that it shares this honor with more than 140 other student societies at the same university. High on a tree ( talk) 02:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Is this really notable? It's just basically a clone of this page, just written slightly differently: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/twins.html. If somebody really wants to see this information, they can just go to the original source rather than look at a reproduction of it on Wikipedia.
Plus, it's just not encyclopedic. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines of notability. Fléêťflämẽ U- T- C 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. ZimZalaBim talk 01:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This article belongs in a dictionary, not on WP Ecoleetage ( talk) 01:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The article was significantly improved beginning on 17:37, 12 May 2008; the earlier "delete" opinions would seem to no longer apply. Sandstein 07:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Nonsense, original research, an essay. You call it. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Corvus cornix talk 01:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
OK now this is my first article so may I be forgiven for being a little over protctive? The fact that so many google hits lead to 'No True Scotsman Fallacy' was what prompted me to create this article because as a Scot, the usage I am much more familiar with is the the one I've written about. Most editors seem to be saying OR, that's fair enough, if I can't get some decent references into it, I will not object to it's deletion. Re:Nonsense; I can't see how this applies; I've read the criteria for deletion:patent nonsense, and unless the quality of my writing is WAY below what I think, this criteria is being mis-applied Jmackaerospace ( talk) 11:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment A couple of sources have been added. Bridies ( talk) 18:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment subbed the article with links, cleanup and delisting among other wkfying things. Now adding tag requesting in-text citations if anyone wants to follow up. Does it need a "hang on" tag? A Scottish culture or military culture cat?
Julia Rossi (
talk)
02:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
PS added cats and "intext citations needed" tag. Within the delete box there's something about deciding to "keep" -- is this the case?
Julia Rossi (
talk)
03:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
reply
Commment I will create intext references as soon as I'm home from work and I teach myself how. There may be some parts that cannot be backed up by reliable sources, although as an uberGoogler I can say that there are plenty of 'weak' and context based sources out there, which are of course, not acceptable here, but I did make sure that that the phrase was out there in that context before I made the article. Anything I can't properly back up, I'll remove. Jmackaerospace ( talk) 11:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC) ps. I keep forgetting to sign comments, chalk it up to excitement Jmackaerospace ( talk) 11:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - whenever someone asks me if I am a true Scotsman, I ask them if they are a true pervert... By the way, the popular culture section never mentioned Carry On up the Khyber - what's with that? Scotland's moved beyond this stage in the past decade. Our culture is not just there as the butt of vulgar and thread worn crappy jokes.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 18:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: there seems to be misunderstanding (such as redirecting to the unrelated No True Scotsman article, and not wanting Scotland to look silly) and some snobbery about being ridiculous. I found it helpful to know the history and source of the saying which raised it above ridicule imo. If it has a basis to exist, that's fact, it's well-known, and even being the butt of ridicule is fact -- these validate it imo. Julia Rossi ( talk) 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: I'm done referencing and citing and all that jazz (unless someone can point out something else that needs doing; I'm too close) from now it should stand on it's own merit. Jmackaerospace ( talk) 19:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable office building Ecoleetage ( talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was weak consensus for keep. Appears to satisfy the letter of WP:BIO. Rividian may be right that the subject may slip into obscurity, but for now it can be kept. -- Selket Talk 05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is about a non notable hopeful politician. GBVrallyCI ( talk) 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. It's never been made very clear which article this is supposed to be a content fork of. Inappropriate spinouts can be merged back without an AfD. Sandstein 07:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This article appears to repeat information in the existing articles relating to Baha'i. Ecoleetage ( talk) 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Even those who subscribe to the notion of laissez les bon temps roulez will have problems with this this highly subjective list. Ecoleetage ( talk) 01:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - consensus to keep although the article is currently very poor - Peripitus (Talk) 10:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Article reads like an advertisement; notability is not established in the current text. Ecoleetage ( talk) 01:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough to deserve her own article. If anything, redirect to Ernest Borgnine. Anthony Rupert ( talk) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The references appear trivial for the most part. She was present when the station was converted from over-the-air to online but she is not portrayed as the instigator or planner of that transition. WP:BIO is fairly strict about the requirements for someone in the entertainment business to have an article. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. Lacks 3rd party references to significant coverage of this local radio personality. No mention of notable awards or widespread recognition for industry contributions. Appears to be just another local DJ, PD, etc. Rtphokie ( talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep I don't know how to respond to other people in here but I think this should be kept. A news reporter of 10TV aka WBNS of Columbus, Ohio doesn't have.. any notable awards and widespread recognition, but she is notable by those who watch the news. Some would want to look her up for more information about her. Same with Nicole Sandler. She's not all that famous. Those who listen to her on the radio where she is DJing will know her. Those who are curious and want information would want to go to Wikipedia for information just like many other people do for information and they won't get jack squat. So I request Keep.-- Xxhopingtearsxx ( talk) 01:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm very familiar with the game, and the gangs of the game are themselves non-notable; furthermore, there is very little information on the gangs themselves from primary sources that doesn't amount to basic retelling of the plot, that otherwise cannot be contained within the main articles on the games themselves. The article was PRODed but removed, so this is to formalize the request for removal. MASEM 00:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as spam.. DGG ( talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:SPAM KurtRaschke ( talk) 00:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW -- JForget 01:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable list of songs. No references and no info about it. Macy (Review me!) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. I'm somewhat perplexed with some of the arguments regarding policy consensus: WP:PLOT is currently part of WP:NOT, a policy. It seems to be applicable, too, as the article consists entirely of plot summary. Sandstein 07:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is an in-universe repetition of the plot section of the New Jedi Order book series articles. It is therefore repetitive and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 23:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be non-notable organization. No luck finding WP:RS, nothing in the article to indicate notability. Previously deleted via PROD, so brought here for discussion. -- Kinu t/ c 00:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Despite the influx of "keep" votes (and I mean 'votes', not '!votes'), the issues raised by the comments supporting deletion--specifically, that there are not a sufficient number of independent sources to confirm notability--are not addressed. Anyone confused about this should have a look through Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- jonny- m t 04:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This article on a new keyboard layout was re-created following a deletion review in which the consensus was "Deletion endorsed; however, article unprotected to permit sourced rewrite." The arguments proposed in the review for re-creation were that if sources could not be found, it should be re-considered for deletion.
Now while at first sight the article appears to cite plenty of sources, out of these, no more than two at most meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable, secondary sources, and even then coverage is hardly "non-trivial" as Wikipedia's notability criteria require. The only academic study cited is an undergraduate dissertation that has not been peer reviewed; the Caps Off award was an obscure affair run by a private individual that, despite being advertised as a "million dollar" competition, raised less than 200 euros in the end; and inclusion in X11 and Ubuntu seems almost completely undocumented, apart from some comments in various Ubuntu forums and IRC chats. The only other sources cited are the article's own previous deletion debate here on Wikipedia and a blog entry by a Microsoft developer stating that they would not be including Colemak in Windows precisely because it is non-notable. Vquex ( talk) 00:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
- *Delete what random gibberish feature ISN'T included in x number of linux distros? Saying "this feature is supported by PurpleShoe Linux" is not useful or notable. Numbers of users is. Miami33139 ( talk) 07:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was not notable delete -- Selket Talk 22:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable the daughter of someone does not infer notability. BigDunc Talk 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep after significant improvement. Glass Cobra 03:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The organization's website is down ( [63]); this appears to be a non-notable flash in the pan. YixilTesiphon Say hello Be shallow 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply