The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Looks to be self-promotion. No proof of notability.
Octane (
talk)
23:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
This article is not self promotion. For reference, please see: www.grngecko.com/torment.html fidnru ( talk) 7:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)— fidnru ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Not self-promotion. An article meant to juxtapose knowns against speculation. It is of note as the puzzle has had 32000 submissions, all wrong. Many have tried, none have succeeded over the course of 3 years. Ekansadakaj ( talk) 00:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)— Ekansadakaj ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Search "grngecko torment" on google to see the sheer number of communities the have tried their hand at this puzzle. Most threads go to page 50 and beyond, and there are plenty of different websites that do so. Ekansadakaj ( talk) 01:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC) NOTE: User:Ekansadakaj is the author of the page and is a SPA. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Semantics, if that bothers you. It was published in 2007. I have to agree that "discovered" is the wrong word to use. Feel free to edit at your disposal with little things like this. Ekansadakaj ( talk) 15:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
You manage to find everything wrong with the article while ignoring anything useful the article provides. Most, if not all information can be rewritten an in objective voice. "What we Know" is "What is Known". If you need confirmation it exists, click the link. "Some" people is a rather large quantity. I see many opinions in your argument. Ekansadakaj ( talk) 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Disputed prod but still don't think the article passes WP:ENT. Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:CRYSTAL, only source is first-party. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill ( talk) 22:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NALBUMS. Morenooso ( talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources are present on this article and it does not get ghits that could be used to verify its release. -- Morenooso ( talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per g12 (Non-Admin Closure) Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 00:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
CSD tags repeatedly removed by IP. Spam. GregJackP ( talk) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This list seems redundant. We already have a category "Classical double-bassists", which is much easier to maintain individually than this huge, unreferenced list. Burpelson AFB ( talk) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This list seems redundant. We already have a category "Bass Guitarists", which is much easier to maintain individually than this huge, unreferenced list. I've removed a few entries that are not specifically known as bassists (like Courtney Love and Beck), then realized the whole thing is redundant and ought to go. Burpelson AFB ( talk) 21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Prod removed by author, no independent, verifiable sources to back up notability. Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 20:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Merging or any other editorial action can be discussed on the talk page. Tim Song ( talk) 03:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Proposing the article for deletion on the grounds of; The article is written in POV style and seems to be in violation of a number of Wikipedia rules: WP:FORK, WP:Synthesis and WP:SOAP. Please note the final section of the article, which questions the legal borders of a neighbouring state and as such qualifies as propaganda. Hittit ( talk) 20:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BAND Morenooso ( talk) 18:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources are cited for this recent band. It was nominated for a CSD which was declined by an anonymous IP and regular editor without a proper edit summary. A substitute PROD tag was placed on the article which also was declined by the same editor without an edit summary suggesting why the article is notable. Its present references are other Wikipedia articles and unreliable sources. -- Morenooso ( talk) 18:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Only source is her Twitter, which is a primary source. Can't verify track listing or single release anywhere else, and the cover used in this article is a fake. Nothing on Gnews; only hits online are forums or fansites which are not reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 02:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable dance teacher. No reliable sources to back up claim that caused A7 speedy deletion to be declined. Gigs ( talk) 17:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Tim Song ( talk) 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
if the creator can get some reliable and accurate sources and post them as references, it should be good to go. otherwise, according to wikipedia's notability standards, it doesn't come close yet. Qö₮$@37 ( talk) 17:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Qö₮$@37 ( talk) 17:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Okay thank you for the awarness, I have the references coming, Ive been to busy with work to cite them. -- Equd ( talk) 17:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and move to Mickey Factz. Tim Song ( talk) 02:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician who has not enough significant coverage by non-trivial published works, nor has he released anything other than independent albums. Article of the subject has been deleted six times. 1, 2 Still fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen ( talk) 17:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Discounting early comments as no longer relevant due to the substantial edits to the article, I find a consensus to keep. Tim Song ( talk) 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This article was just created. While the topic could be notable, there are virtually no objects that can be determined from space. The article says that "cities and dams" or something are visible. Maybe, but I don't see how the article can be expanded. Maybe someone can
userfy this for a while to get some relevant content, but until then I do not believe it is worthy of inclusion, as it is unlikely to be expanded. —
Timneu22 ·
talk
17:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
delete - no references, but if the creator can collect some reliable sources, then it should be fine. Qö₮$@37 ( talk) 17:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Looks like the rescue effort has worked; the article I nominated does not look like the article that appears now. — Timneu22 · talk 09:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. AfD is not for cleanup. Tim Song ( talk) 02:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
movie that does not state notability IN ARTICLE. if the creator can give sufficient information for notability with references, then it should be fine. Qö₮$@37 ( talk) 17:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Qö₮$@37 ( talk) 17:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep Salih has now sourced the articles. It is a 1982 film, so online sources will be thin (most indic language archives begin only from 2000 or so). But any Malayalam film that stars Mammootty is automatically notable and would have had lots of media coverage in the print media.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 04:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as copyright infringement. Canley ( talk) 06:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I am not certain if this is a hoax or just bad writing, but I don't think it belongs here. Please let me know if I am correct. Joal Beal ( talk) 17:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Even with quite a few keep !votes discounted, there appears to be a consensus to keep. Tim Song ( talk) 03:09, 19 May 2010 (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}} . |
Article has gone through several rounds of prod/deprod, de-peacocking, and notability-tagging, but the concerns of several editors (including myself) remain unresolved. I see the main problem here being that the existing refs lend no support to notability. Specifically, they're all either simple website listings ( this one is typical) or brief acknowledgments ( this one is typical). Standard Google searching turns up nothing more than the usual web-flotsam (blogs, ratemyprofessors.com page, zoominfo business listing and the like). GS doesn't show any citations to any of his academic writings. On balance, it looks to me that this case does not satisfy notability requirements, so I thought I'd bring it here for a broader evaluation. Respectfully, Agricola44 ( talk) 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
While Orthodox rabbis generally don't get "press" on the internet, this page really needs to add some evidence of notability from books or newspapers to justify its existence. I think what's going on here is that someone is trying to populate the Template:Ner Yisroel box with every rabbi who teaches at Ner Yisroel, producing quite a few red links. This is not what's being done with other yeshivas; for example, see Template:Mir Yeshiva, where the roshei yeshiva and assorted "famous lecturers" who are notable enough to have their own page are the only ones included in the template box. Yoninah ( talk) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
*Keep per Saudi Arabian footballers. Chesdovi ( talk) 10:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:ATH: "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition are notable as they have achieved the "status" of participating at the highest level of football. - Yipee. Chesdovi ( talk) 10:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep per IZAK, and I must say I do not remeber agreeing with him before. We are not talking about "a lecturer", we are talking about the top lecturer, who has been in a major position for decades, in one of the oldest, most prominent, and unique Yeshivot in the world. (I have not attended the institution, but I have lived for many years in Baltimore.) If Ner Israel properly follows Jewish tradition and does not churn out tons of publicity, that is not to its detriment. Mzk1 ( talk) 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Article failed CSD, but it seems like an obvious attempt to advertise a completely non-notable future film. — Timneu22 · talk 16:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was The article was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G12.. ( non-admin closure) moɳo 18:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Article is written in a how-to style, pure WP:OR, mostly WP:NONSENSE. Redirect is not plausible because; no reason to keep redirects around that are unlikely to be used or are unnecessary. If you're tired of voting on stuff like this, see the discussion about how-to articles. — Timneu22 · talk 16:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Tim Song ( talk) 02:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
unnotable music band. Article was created by the acknowledged son of Luc Hensill (bands' guitarist), User:Raoniz. Nominated once but no concensus was reached. Licory ( talk) 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Hello,
I really would like to know why Licory ( talk) personally want to delete the article The Klan (Belgian band) for the second time in not even five months!
The Klan (Belgian band) released three L.P. albums on a major label :
Albums References : the Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroep (national broadcasting organisation of the government of the Flemish-speaking northern part of Belgium) archives :
The Klan (The Belgian Beatles) was selected by The Rolling Stones for giving a special show with them at the Paris Olympia theater the 11th April 1967 in the afternoon with live broadcast by the French radio Europe 1 (Musicorama presented by Hubert).
Before to be called The Klan (Belgian band), The Klan (Belgian band) was called "Les Ombres" :
In 1965, Olympia Records sells the contracts of "Les Ombres" to Palette Records (BMG Universal Music).
Greetings! Raoniz ( talk) 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
PS The contributions of Licory ( talk) are here: [20]
Attempting to delete The Klan (Belgian band) are the only contributions of that "user".
Greetings! Raoniz ( talk) 10:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
"Join Us", The Klan, PALETTE RECORDS, VRT & SIMIM/IFPI, Belgian State Music Archives Raoniz ( talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
"Remaster (and its derivations, frequently found in the phrases digitally remastered or digital remastering) is a word marketed mostly in the digital audio age, although the remastering process has existed since recording began. Frequently advertised with regard to CD and DVD releases, remastering has become a powerful buzzword in multimedia industries, and it generally implies quality enhancement of sound to a previously existing recording (frequently designed to encourage people to buy a new version on a new release) (from Wikipedia)". Raoniz ( talk) 20:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g3, vandalism. NawlinWiki ( talk) 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Inappropriate and unconstructive material for Wikipedia. Johnny Beta ( talk) 16:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. already speedy deleted FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 15:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Band from the early 90s that have made no footprint on the internet. Doesn't seem likely. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources found to support notability. Janggeom ( talk) 15:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The article is about one television station's coverage of Formula One, with most content from pages such as this,; a basic copy of the coverage. There are no other articles dedicated to a TV stations coverage of a sport, and rightly so, it is not a notable enough subject for inclusion here. QueenCake ( talk) 15:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Merge and move should be discussed on the talk page. Tim Song ( talk) 03:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Badly written, sensationalist and largely unreferenced article. The only reference is for an event that already exists as a Wikipedia article - Bristol Channel floods, 1607. Perhaps any content that can be referenced could be merged into River Severn. Simple Bob ( talk) 15:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Magna Carta: The Phantom of Avalanche. Tim Song ( talk) 02:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The stub contains no information that is not in the separate game articles. This page has been a stub for a long time, and the only new information it contained was moved to one of the other articles. JokerWylde ( talk) 14:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Aside from a transwiki argument, nobody but the nominator is arguing for deletion. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be OR and doesn't have any real notability. It ought to be deleted or included in something other than a independent article. Sadads ( talk) 13:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable. PrincessofLlyr royal court 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily kept, topic is notable and the rationale given is not a valid reason for deletion. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:NLT PER WP:NLT Subject needs to withdraw legal threat.
KoshVorlon Naluboutes,Aeria Gloris 12:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Afghans in the United Kingdom. Tim Song ( talk) 02:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not sure that the topic is notable. The only sources we have are a single Reuters article and a passing mention in a government report. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Digitalism (band). Tim Song ( talk) 02:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
no independent notability shown for this limited release ep. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 02:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Biography that lacks significant independent coverage. The claim that those two papers are well-know is not attributed to a secondary source, but simply the opinion of the wikipedian that wrote that. The rest of the article records spats between him and other FOSS developers, using only primary sources. The lack of biographical information about him is rather telling of the lack of sources. Pcap ping 10:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Heroes of the Lance. Tim Song ( talk) 02:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Article concerning characters in a fictional universe who do not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Content is duplicated in List of Dragonlance characters, which is an appropriate list article on the subject. Claritas ( talk) 18:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per the snowball clause. – MuZemike 00:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Joe Francis' article should be deleted due to general inaccuracies and misleading bias articles that are slanderous and defamatory. Joe Francis' life should not be defined by legal accusations and alleged events where lawsuits are threatened but charges are dropped or dismissed or never even brought forward. Please consider this deletion. Thank you Mantrafilms ( talk) 15:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC) — Mantrafilms ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. Keep arguments boil down to WP:GHITS and WP:ITSNOTABLE. This is without prejudice to the creation of a redirect. Tim Song ( talk) 03:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Reasons For Deletion
Link Love is not an official or widely used Search Engine Optimization term. "link love" is another way to describe the process of building backlinks, which is already thoroughly covered in multiple SEO-related articles. This article does not provide any unique content and does not benefit the SEO category at all. Bsanders246 ( talk) 09:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments
Definition of backlinks: The number of backlinks is one indication of the popularity or importance of that website or page (though other measures, such as PageRank, are likely to be more important).
This would be similar to me creating a article called "Reference Love" to describe how references work in a business environment..
Bsanders246 ( talk) 02:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Tim Song ( talk) 02:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Contravention of WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO; many red links or links to the wrong article for non-notable councillors; the canonical list is available at http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/members, to which we can link Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Seems more fan based than encyclopedic. I am sure what has been said here has been said before in other articles. Jhenderson777 ( talk) 23:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Having only played for the reserves at Steaua, he fails WP:ATHLETE, and there insufficient coverage for this article to meet WP:GNG Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete . Marasmusine ( talk) 19:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:ANYBIO, Non-notable person. Lack of reliable third party sources that specifically mentions the subject. The only relevant source: [36] Regancy42 ( talk) 07:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Really poorly written article that appears to be more spam than about anything notable. The sources are irrelevant or cite copyright listings which have nothing to do with the piece, the text reads as though it was lifted from a press release, and given that 'shabby chic' is a much more widespread term than within the US, it makes no sense - in the UK 'shabby chic' would mean Cath Kidston and home-made items rather than the furniture produced by an obscure American company. If it could be rewritten in the Wikipedia style, or if the designer is notable enough in their own right then given a page of her own, but right now I see no reason why this should stay. MippyCHEESE ( talk) 16:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Long argumentation of KSatSCB
|
---|
At the outset, I wish to point out that this article was suggested by Wikipedia editor User: Ukexpat as a result of his reversion of edits to the existing unreferenced article at Shabby chic. See User_talk:KSatSCB#Shabby_chic. I had attempted to edit that article to help differentiate between descriptive uses of the term to reference a style and uses intended to reference the proprietary brand, but User:Ukexpat believed that the brand and the term should be discussed in separate articles. My initial edits were also proposed to correct inaccuracies in the unreferenced Shabby chic article. Having followed User:Ukexpat’s advice, I notified him/her shortly after publishing the article to request review and commentary. See User_talk:Ukexpat/Archive_17#Shabby_chic_and_Shabby_Chic_.28brand.29. User:Ukexpat was away on holiday, but upon his/her return, he/she advised that detailed comments were forthcoming. See User_talk:KSatSCB#Your_message_on_my_talk_page. Accordingly, this discussion would not be complete and a consensus could not be reached without some commentary from User:Ukexpat, which I will now request. I submit that if the content of this article is somehow not worthy of a separate entry in Wikipedia, it should at least be incorporated into the existing Shabby chic article in order to eliminate inaccuracies, add much-needed references, and help readers differentiate between the brand and descriptive use of the term. I will now address the merits of the editors’ statements in the nomination for deletion. Contrary to the unsupported suggestion by User:Armbrust and User:MippyCHEESE, this article is not pure advertising, and provides real substance. The creator of the SHABBY CHIC brand is the well known designer, Rachel Ashwell, who has published at least six books on interior design (“Shabby Chic” (1996), “Rachel Ashwell's Shabby Chic Treasure Hunting and Decorating Guide” (1998), “The Shabby Chic Home” (2000), “The Shabby Chic Gift of Giving” (2001), “Shabby Chic: Sumptuous Settings and Other Lovely Things” (2004), and “Shabby Chic Interiors: My Rooms, Treasures, and Trinkets” (2009), and has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show (see [ [37]] among other notable programs. Her brand has achieved much notoriety, including coverage in a recent New York Times article. See [ [38]]. The various trademark registrations referenced in the article further support the worldwide notoriety of the brand and contradict the commentary by editor User:MippyCHEESE that it is an “obscure American company” with rights only in the U.S. The company owns registrations for the SHABBY CHIC mark in at least the U.S., European Community, U.K., Australia, Canada, China, France, Hong Kong, India, Indosnesia, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Mexico. I suggest, in response to the comments by User:MippyCHEESE, that these sources are relevant because they help the reader to understand that the term when used as a brand has rights associated with it and that the owner of the brand, although based in the U.S., is not limited in its global reach and notoriety. Next, I note that the Wikipedia guide to deletion Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination specifically states that: “if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject, the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.” I submit that editors User:MippyCHEESE and User:Armbrust have not done so. In contrast, I have researched the term “Shabby Chic” extensively and have included references to support the statements made, particularly with regard to the origin of the term and its transformation from descriptive use as discussed in Shabby chic to a brand as discussed in this article. I am confident that the new page will be helpful to make users aware of the term and its use. By way of example, I confirmed the origin of the term by actually obtaining copies of the book “Mlinaric on Decorating” and the London Times articles by Ms. Mirabel Cecil and Ms. Shona Poole, and conducting a search of The World of Interiors, which the corresponding Shabby chic article mistakenly claims to have coined the term. I suggest, in response to the comments by User:MippyCHEESE, that these sources are very relevant, and that they are not referenced in the Shabby chic article. Editor User:MippyCHEESE mentions another designer in the UK whom he/she claims to be synonymous with the Shabby chic style. I note that the designer’s name was only recently added by an anonymous editor to the Shabby chic article without any supporting references, and although that designer is unknown to me, her website [ [39]] makes no reference to the term Shabby chic and nonetheless indicates that her career did not begin until long after Rachel Ashwell became established and associated with “Shabby Chic”, whether as a descriptive term or as a brand. I submit that the inclusion of the designer suggested by User:MippyCHEESE in the Shabby chic article may not be appropriate, especially if Rachel Ashwell is not also discussed in that article. With regard to the subjective claims about the quality of the writing, I submit that this is not grounds for deletion, and that the Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination suggests that such articles should be “merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted”. I disagree that the article is advertising or spam as it does not solicit any business and is not designed to promote a company or individual. Rather the content of the article is informational in nature and helps readers to understand the history and usage of the term as a brand of goods and services as compared with merely descriptive uses of the term. I note that Wikipedia hosts other articles about brands that have been misused descriptively, such as Le Bon Marché, Interview_(magazine), Vogue, Vanity Fair (magazine), Sheraton Hotels and Resorts, Kleenex, Xerox, and Band-Aid. I certainly invite suggestions as to how this article can be improved, but I submit that it should not be deleted. If there is consensus that it should be deleted, then I propose that the contents be merged into a corrected version of the Shabby chic article. KSatSCB 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Band fails WP:MUSIC. Article lacking any reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Nouse4aname ( talk) 10:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted (G11, advertising) by UtherSRG. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 11:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I have made the required changes in the article. -- Zacerp ( talk) 10:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Purely advertisement and doesn't belong to Wikipedia in its current format. Johnny Beta ( talk) 09:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete Obviously not the correct name and content already covered in the article under the correct name Polargeo ( talk) 10:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Is this notable? {{ Sonia| talk| simple}} 09:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
*Comment I have redirected the article to
Middle East Economic Survey. This seems to be the logical place for the content. the deletion debate on this particular article is not important as it is the other article which should be the focus for improvement. The other article is clearly notable.
Polargeo (
talk)
10:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
100% OR, all numbers are completely made up and, frankly, bear no resemblance to reality. I think Peterhead F.C. would be quite surprised to learn that they have 30,000 fans given that their average home attendance is around 500..... ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Young Royals. Tim Song ( talk) 02:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books) guideline. DrKiernan ( talk) 07:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles do not meet the notability guidelines: the books are not award-winning or the subject of academic discourse, and the only sources used are the novels themselves:
The result was redirect to Young Money Entertainment. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. Tim Song ( talk) 03:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Obvious violation of WP:Duplicate and all the information on this article AND MORE is already available on Young Money Entertainment. I'm not opposed to a redirect or merge, either. There's no question Young Money is notable, but an even more Detailed article already exists and this article has no purpose when the other one is still around. Str8cash ( talk) 18:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Are there any reliable sources that establish that Young Money passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations)? If not, this should not be a separate article. Cunard ( talk) 23:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Seems to be just a student film featured at a community college. Doesn't fit CSD. Harland Q Pitt 07:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This article feels more like a pile of synthesis than a complete article. The unsourced parts also start to feel more like a how-to guide than an encyclopedia article. Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Barden Corporation. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable product made by a company whose article I have AfD'ed for failing WP:CORP. The single non-company-published reference is an advertising page. Simon-in-sagamihara ( talk) 04:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable manufacturer. They sure have an interesting history, but it all comes from the company's own sources. Fails WP:CORP. Simon-in-sagamihara ( talk) 04:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 02:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy. Tagged as spam (G11), this article is about a Korean company for which I am unable to find third-party reliable sources that are not press releases or sales catalogs. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 04:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete as speedy contester: on a second look, no sorces, may be a hoax, probably unsalvageble —Preceding unsigned comment added by HighFlyingFish ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete; could have been speedied. Kansan ( talk) 06:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 19:37, 14 May 2010 (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}} . |
Sigh. I think that its pretty clear that this person is non-notable, but the author of the article feels really strongly that she is, and she maybe doesn't quite meet the criteria for speedy deletion -- she was Crawfish Queen, whatever the heck that is -- so lets go through the process. Herostratus ( talk) 03:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Herostratus ( talk) 03:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm from Louisiana so I'll explain. Crawfish Queen is a beauty Queen title in Louisiana. One goes though numerous beauty pageants around the state and must come out in first place for up to 20. Then a semi final will began where the finalist all faced against each other in a pageant. It is the highest beauty queen title in Louisiana next to Miss Louisiana. Nonnie is also seen as Louisana's idol, many if not all of the girls residing in Louisiana look up to her as their idol. She's even gained the attention of Rich Music Inc. http://richmusicinc.com/ And she's going to star in a feature film. I think this is more then some other people on here, so I see nothing wrong with the page.-- 174.69.203.49 ( talk) 03:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Also she is going to be performing on tour at the Cajundome and has performed at Independence stadium and will be heading to New Orleans Arena. I think all these things placed together makes her notble, because I've seen others with much less.-- 174.69.203.49 ( talk) 04:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
For anyone too lazy to click the link, the entirety of the "online news article" is as follows: "Nonnie Berard's headling [SIC] tour. Nonnie Berard, famous Louisiana singer is set to embark on her statewide tour though [SIC] Louisiana." That's literally it. And then it's back to covering technology. Hmmmm... ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 05:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
[...] My [talent] agency created a wiki for me---> [shortened link to Nonnie Berard Wikipedia article] Simply overwhelmed. ;w;
Nonnie Berard (Twitter), via tweet, at 12:51 AM May 10th
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 11 May 2010 (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}} . |
The result was Forget this ridiculous discussion no point in arguing; withdrawn by nominator; WP:NAC. Mike moral ♪♫ 03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NOTNEWS; Wikipedia is not a new agency and there is no need for news here. Mike moral ♪♫ 02:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep the whole shebang with leave to speedy renominate any of these articles individually. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Subject is a female player in a local soccer team. While the team may be notable, the subject fails WP:GNG. She may have represented the team overseas once, six years ago, but this seems to be her only claim to fame. AussieLegend ( talk) 02:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons. All of these players play for the same club. Some have played for only a single season and most have not played overseas. None have received significant coverage anywhere: reply
Hack ( talk) 07:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional.
- Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition.
- Have played FIFA recognised senior international football or football at the Olympic games.
- Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable (no other level of amateur football confers notability).
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 02:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence that this software is notable. Google search results in 113 hits, 22 "unique". Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This is not a Software but a concept for software to be developed. All software developers developing natural language software in Sri Lanka must make their software compatible with the concept to get the aproval of ICTA Sri Lanka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.99.233 ( talk) 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
--please read http://www.siyabas.lk/docs/Presidential_Circular_on_Sinhala_Unicode.pdf and http://www.locallanguages.lk/node/95 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.99.233 ( talk) 05:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
--Clearly states the rule http://www.siyabas.lk/docs/UNICODE_CIRCULAR_3.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasiths ( talk • contribs) 05:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Renincarnated. Tim Song ( talk) 02:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable song, non-charting single; no sources. Fails WP:NSONGS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ( talk) 01:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not notable as it does not have a firm release date, supporting album, is a stub, has not charted, nor recieved extensive awards or independent coverage. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
decltype
(
talk)
19:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replyThe result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 02:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
BLP prod contested with the addition of a few sources, all of which are directories such as IMDB. Indian actor, no sign of actual notability. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a musical group. Prod removed by IP. tedder ( talk) 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Biography of an academic with no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Google scholar finds published papers [54] but not at a level of citation that would demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF #1. Additionally, the article has no reliable sources, which are needed especially for biographies of living persons. David Eppstein ( talk) 04:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. "Best known for his friendship with Albert Einstein." Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 04:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn with leave to speedy renominate. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The album songlist has yet to be officially announced at JVR Music's official website at http://www.jvrmusic.com, nor at any other major websites. Article is referenced entirely by one link, namely a Blogspot post (i.e. a blog entry), that is based on rumour information obtained from Chinese BBS forums. The aformentioned blog website also claimed ( [55]) to have earlier predicted (incorrectly) the name of Jay Chou's 2010 album (as "Cross 十字勳章 (Shi Zi Xun Zhang)"), along with song names and lyrics back in April, which turned out to be a hoax made by a child on a Chinese forum back in November last year, and also claimed to have the "leaked versions" of the hoax songs, which are obviously not by Jay Chou, but rather a Shanzhai imposter fan.
A google search in Chinese for "周杰倫 跨時代 专辑 歌名" gives nothing but either speculative news or forum posts; a google search in English leads to an even bigger dead end. All that is absolutely, concretely confirmed (being announced officially by JVR Music) is the name of the album and the release date.
(Also possibly of interest: Hardcore fan blog post from 2009: OMGZ!!! New 2009 Jay Chou album called CROSS!!!LOLOLOLOL; "News" that claims Jay Chou's album will be called "Cross"; Tianya forum post made in 2009 regarding the "Cross" hoax; Baidu Tieba post made not that long ago, still believing that the new album will be called "Cross"; Google cache of a Baidu Zhidao post made back in 2009, now deleted, regarding Jay's 2009 Album "Cross", which never existed)
And finally, WP:CRYSTALBALL still is an issue, even though the album itself will be released in 10 days time. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 03:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (and yes I did notice that someone !voted "keep" twice) ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable adult/ community education center, no assertion of notability, no sources, google turns up nothing other than the mere fact that they exist. GED prep centers and the like have no inherent notability, if schools weren't excluded from CSD, I'd tag A7. 2 says you, says two 03:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Tim Song ( talk) 02:43, 19 May 2010 (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}} . |
Delete. Very thinly-sourced, one local media reference. I'm not sure this is terribly notable but would be glad to be proven wrong. — e. ripley\ talk 02:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient significant coverage to keep this article. Tim Song ( talk) 03:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This person is a business executive whose notability is not expressed in this article. A Google search turns up press releases about his appointment to various high positions in notable companies and sometimes about good but unspecified business decisions he has made.
I would propose a merge, but being a former CEO of a notable company may not be worth merging to other articles, especially when lists of former employee lists are not usually normal for articles like those.
I do not doubt that this person is able in his field; I just see no evidence to support the idea that he contributed in such a way that merits his own article in Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Internet businessman who does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY, although his website Babble.com seems to be reasonably notable. Article has been in current state for four years. The article does not cite any sources, and all I can find through Google books is [56] and [57], which are pretty borderline. Concerning the previous AFD consensus, I am not sure whether the individual's historical coverage is necessarily related to current notability. Claritas ( talk) 16:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Frank Wildhorn. Tim Song ( talk) 02:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not important. Show never produced JDDJS ( talk) 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Another thing I will like to point out is that there is no talk about the plot or even the sings of the show at all in the article. Also if this artcile does end up getting kept, the name will have to change since it was made before 2010 and never produced in 2010. And just because a singer recorded a couple of the songs does not made it worth keeping. Many albums do not have pages. Also this singer is not very famous. If a huge singer sang them then it might be worth considering keeping it.-- JDDJS ( talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't believe that Hartman is mentioned sufficiently in reliable sources to meet the requirements on notability. I propose that this article be deleted, an article on the group Hartman heads, Fairness Campaign, be created (currently redirects to Hartman), and Hartman redirect to that article. The group, which has no article, is more notable than its current leader, Hartman. ← George talk 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. Tim Song ( talk) 03:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable compilation album. Canniba loki 22:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The band is mentioned in its lead singer's bio. Also noting unsourced band - there is no reliable sourced info to merge. FT2 ( Talk | email) 17:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill ( talk) 01:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 02:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This band appears to not quite meet WP:BAND. They are close on #4 and not quite so much on #1, but as near as I can tell they are third billed for a regional tour and all the third party coverage I can find is aimed at the headliners. Jminthorne ( talk) 04:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 02:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence of notability. The only references are to listings which establish his existence and the existence of his books, but give no indication of independent coverage or other evidence of notability. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any significant coverage, and the one source given in the article is a blog entry which doesn't mention this product. Haakon ( talk) 13:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 02:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable minor local officeholder; no sign of notability outside the county commission's meeting room. Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Tim Song ( talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
None of the sources is a secondary source; every source is primary (label, artists' official websites). There is a link to a news article, but it's broken. Absolutely nothing found at Google News save for a few false positives. Simply being recorded by several artists does not translate to notability if the song fails WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill ( talk) 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply