The result was delete. Hello guys! My friends and I made a sport. Thought you may want to enjoy it yourself. And visit the Wiki page and help not get it deleted Classic WP:MADEUP Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:03, 9 July 2011 (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}} . |
Stuff I made up one day -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - the consensus is that friendly matches are not notable. Further, fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan ( talk) 23:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD; the reason for nomination is that friendly/exhibition matches, regardless of teams, temporal context or any other parameter involved, are usually not notable enough to rectify an article, per WP:N. Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 23:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 23:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Not sure what to say about this contribution, maybe you best see for yourself: The article seems unencyclopedic to me, an amalgamation of statements that have little to do with each other, and with the article's title. Pgallert ( talk) 22:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 23:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources found. Article is direct copy of bio on the Reverbnation site here. Haruth ( talk) 21:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Information Systems Audit and Control Association. Sandstein 06:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete, Articles only source is the company offering. I csd as this is a multiple recreation/advertisement article but since it was "encyclopeadic in tone" I'm taking it here. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 21:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
I kindly request that the CRISC article is removed from the "deletion" list and reasonable time is given to the wikipedia community to improve its quality. After all, that's one of the key strengths of this encyclopedia.
Thanks & regards,
DPdH (
talk)
17:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete - Unanimity that this is not a genuine political party. Further, it fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan ( talk) 23:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
I did finally find some coverage in a reliable source, a local Northampton paper: http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/community/from_art_to_politics_wedding_fever_s_here_1_2576178
I quote:
"Northampton School for Boys (NSB) pupil Tom Harrison, aged 18, from Abington, Northampton, is so interested in the Royal Family, he and some friends have set up a new organisation called The Royalist Party. Set-up last summer it is not yet an official political party but the boys, including fellow NSB pupil Daniel Foster, aged 16 ,and Jack McDowall, aged 19, who is a student at Southampton University, hope to apply to be an official party soon. Tom said: “I have always been interested in politics and think the monarchy should have a greater role in this country. We do not believe in an absolute monarchy, but we do feel the Queen should be able to use the powers within Government which she so rightly still has today. “We do realise the importance of Parliament but we aim to break the bonds of the Government over the British Monarchy and begin to re-build this once great nation.” He added: “We obviously welcome the Royal Wedding as a chance to celebrate history being made.”"
I think it is clear that this is a very minor project from some well meaning school-kids, and that it is far from being a notable political party. Fences& Windows 21:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 23:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Independent YouTube film - Google news search shows only one news story from NPR, no other significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Fails WP:MOVIE. MikeWazowski ( talk) 21:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 23:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, non-verifiable. Zero ghits on Books, Scholar, News; just three on WWW. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 20:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Not a notable web series JDDJS ( talk) 20:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete ( WP:CSD#G7) by Athaenara. Non-admin closure -- Pgallert ( talk) 21:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
I've had a look for sources and can't find anything that fits the supposed location. Warden ( talk) 18:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. No argument put forward by nominator (Non-admin close). I, Jethrobot drop me a line 19:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
naveenpf ( talk) 18:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 23:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Dogbreedinfo.com has been deemed an unreliable source previously, so don't throw that out there! I haven't found coverage in any suitable sources whatsoever. Anna talk 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:G7 after author blanked page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
At the moment, there appears to be nothing more than rumor about this console when notable sources were searched for. Also see WP:CRYSTAL, section 5 Skamecrazy123 ( talk) 17:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There is no consensus here to delete, it's all to either keep or merge the article. I'm seeing no clerk consensus in favour of clear cut merging, so this can be determined through editorial discussion. non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
This term doesn't seem to merit its own article. I was unable to find sources -- let alone reliable ones -- describing what a "forever home" is, so it would apparently fail the verifiability policy and consequently the general notability guideline. There is an article in Cape Cod Today that says it is "life for an unlucky pup that might not otherwise have gotten another chance to live theirs", but that's not a useful encyclopedic definition from a reputable source. Anna talk 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Article is either about an un-notable organization or is a hoax. Searching google news/books turns up nothing relevant, regular google search doesn't even turn up unreliable sources. Borderline Speedy, but AGF, I'm nominating it here. Monty 845 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Completely fails WP:V. I can't find any evidence that this film exists or is going to exist. If this were real then somebody somewhere on the net would be talking about it. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Not yet in production film. I can't find sources to verify its existence, never mind its notability. Fails WP:V and WP:NFF. Disputed prod. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. looks like we do now have a consensus and that the issue is that the sources are not quite there. This now falls to delete but I will specifically all recreation if the sourcing improves Spartaz Humbug! 08:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
This article is about a video gaming platform that has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that this platform has yet to be released. As best as I can tell, it is in beta testing based own their won web site. The only coverage is this NY Times reprint of a tech blog which is really about the company raising some funds. Whpq ( talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
And Wikipedia doesn't ever talk about products in beta testing? Anyway, this article from the San Francisco Cronicle is not a reprint of the NT Times: [2], it is about their presence at GDC 2011, this one is about the launch of a program to fund third parties: [3], this one about Strawdog Studios mentioning singing a contract to develop a game for the Turbulenz platform: [4] and Strawdog Studios is a recognized entity in Wikipedia: [5]. Latestversion ( talk) 18:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I have found a reference to the presentation Turbulenz gave on the NVidia Booth at GCD 2011: The Future of Browser Gaming with the Turbulenz Engine, this is the direct link to the recording of that presentation: [6], I guess NVidia is a reliable source?. Btw, you can see part of their product offering running on their YouTube channel: [7]. 86.17.249.8 ( talk) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I do not understand why you guys keep ignoring the collaboration with NVidia [13] also reported here [14], doing a live demo and presentation at GDC 2011 is not reliable enough to prove what they are working on? OK, I agree that they are not incredible notable yet, so you want to delete the article and them a month later add it again because Develop magazine runs a full featured article on them? because everything on Wikipedia is only about hugely notable subjects, right? WP:UA I think there is place for this company on Wikipedia, there are smaller companies listed here than Turbulenz. Btw, if you want to known the team you can attend this event or just check github. Latestversion ( talk) 09:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:SNOW — GFOLEY FOUR— 20:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N, no evidence of existence and may be pure vandalism. Got an AfD because of controversy of vandalism. ~~ EBE123~~ talk Contribs 17:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Appears to be part hoax, part non-notable game. Unreferenced, except for a single YouTube video with no clear description or comments and categorized as "comedy". Full of silly claims about being played by famous historical figures like "Dusty Baker, President Gerald Ford and Reese Witherspoon". The line "The pool of Jamie Guido in East Brunswick, New Jersey is widely thought to be the origin of this game" makes it sound like something made up one day. First nom was speedy closed for procedural reasons. Dcoetzee 15:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
On the other hand, I dont see any reference to this game in any book that is about kids games, so that would argue against a dedicated article. -- Noleander ( talk) 23:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No prejudice to creating a redirect in the article's place. Mkativerata ( talk) 19:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
When I prodded this article, I didn't realize it had been prod-deleted before, so here we are. Weapon used in the game Call of Duty. No notability independent of the game itself. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 15:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. (Non-admin closure of my own nomination.) Singularity42 ( talk) 15:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Fictional website/search engine from the Wake (Robert J. Sawyer novel) trilogy. I was originally going to tag this to be merged into the article(s) about the trilogy, but it turns out there is very little Wikipedia content about the plot, characters, etc. Makes no sense to include this as a seperate article at the moment. Singularity42 ( talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Big Dom 09:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable per WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't yet played in a professional match. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Gurt Posh ( talk) 14:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Big Dom 09:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Australian "fan experiences company". Lots of external links but do any of them actually establish the notability of this company? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 13:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
— 1.41.115.43 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was Keep and rewrite. Spartaz Humbug! 03:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Notability and inclusion of content already the subject of deletion nomination. Vanisaac ( talk) 10:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
G. Hosszú: Proposal for encoding the Carpathian Basin Rovas script in the SMP of the UCS. National Body Contribution for consideration by UTC and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2, January 21, 2011, revised: May 19, 2011
On Wikipedia you are now crediting the two transcription tables to Prof. Gabor Vékony. However, in your article they are credited to Libisch, Győző (2004), whose work [21] does not appear to be on the same scholarly level as Vékony. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your assertion that the WP article is a "scientific description". Nor does it inspire confidence that your references actually support the assertions you make, as opposed to providing a basis for original research and synthesis. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
G. Hosszú: Proposal for encoding the Carpathian Basin Rovas script in the SMP of the UCS. National Body Contribution for consideration by UTC and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2, January 21, 2011, revised: May 19, 2011
I also referred to Vékony. As you see, Vékony published in Hungarian and in German. I do not know any publication of Vékony in English about the Szarvas Rovas inscription. That is why, I had to translate it to English. Obvious, that I use my own translation in every publication, where I refer to this result of Vékony. Moreover, the book of mine
Hosszú, Gábor (2011): Heritage of Scribes. The Rovas Scripts’ Relations to Eurasian Writing Systems. First edition. Budapest, ISBN 978-963-88437-4-6
is the review of the results of the Hungarian scholars besides some own results. I cited this book many times, since it is in English, oppositely the majority of the Hungarian books in the topic of Rovas scripts. However, I excluded this book from the reference, since I was criticized that I want to advertise my book. Therefore, I have to cite the original Hungarian books, only. (Anyway, I cited these books earlier as well, when I cited my book.) Please, let me know, if my reasoning was not clear. Thanks. Gábor - Rovasscript ( talk) 06:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Removing your article from the references does not change that. Worse, it masks the fact that this article is copied verbatim from it, including all the tables and illustrations. Plus, there is a serious discrepancy between the two articles concerning the reference for the tables, substituting the name of a more well-known scholar (Vékony) for the Wikipedia article. You cite Vékony (an archeologist) multiple times, mostly work from 1987, and seem to be claiming that he categorically agrees with your views and conclusions. I actually very much doubt that. Incidentally, there is an article in English from the Hungarian Quarterly which explains the controversial nature of some of Vékony's views with rebuttals and criticism from several academic linguists. Surprisingly (or perhaps not) neither this article nor any of the scholars it quotes appear in your Wikipedia articles. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC) reply
the article is already published.
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not meet criteria for WP:BLP. avs5221( talk| contrib) 10:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Big Dom 09:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article on a non-notable degree mill. Claims to be a "National Accredited University by NPSAA", but there's no NPSAA on the US govt list of recognized regional and national institutional accreditation agencies or specialist accrediting agencies. I'm guessing that "NPSAA" refers to National Private Schools Accreditation Alliance, whose confidence-inspiring motto is "We warmly welcome you as you are". There's zero coverage online of any "Bryson University" from WP:Reliable sources. The first draft claimed affiliation with Cornell and Wake Forest University: this claim has since been withdrawn. Gurt Posh ( talk) 08:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Big Dom 09:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete The article does not provide reliable sources and and is not notable.
Suraj
T
08:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Big Dom 09:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The general rule of thumb at WP:FOOTY has traditionally been that a club must have competed in the FA Cup to be deemed notable enough for an article. This is not the case with this club. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Big Dom 09:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
also nominating:
a sporting tournament that fails WP:GNG. no evidence of indepth coverage in third party sources, 1 mere gnews hit [27]. being televised in a few countries or having notable participants does not advance notability. there must be independent coverage of these events. LibStar ( talk) 07:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Big Dom 09:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:ATHLETE. has won no major tournaments, no significant coverage of achievements. and fails WP:BIO in general. nothing in gnews and nothing in major Australian search engine trove [28] despite being active in Australia. LibStar ( talk) 07:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. The bottom line is that we have a lot of speculation here, about the long-term effect of this tour. If anyone has concerns, this can always be renominated in a year or two, but there's a fairly obvious lack of consensus in this debate. Courcelles 05:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Royals go on tours, that's part of the job spec. Wikipedia is not a news source, and this trip has no implications in significant changes in international relations, law, etc. and following on from the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's visit to India, this should also be deleted. Mtking ( talk) 07:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep Clearly notable. What is with the anti-royal family on articles like this. In fact I'd advocate a new series on royal visits from previous years and locations.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Big Dom 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book Sergeant Cribb ( talk) 07:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 03:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person. Received coverage for performing at the White House once; none of the other references are third-party (either the subject's website, a press release from an organization that hired him to speak, the Youtube channel of a production company that hired him...) Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
1. "Received coverage for performing at the White House once." Discussion. Coverage of the performance was given by multiple web sites. For example, the Northern Illinois University covered his performance here: [ [35]]. I re-read the article and noticed that a few months ago, more information was added to the article nothing that organizations such as the Oregon History Center, covered Wiegand's appearance there and also mentioned, after the fact, (not by way of promotion) that his performance was received by young people. 2. "None of the other references are third-party." Discussion. Reason 2 is clearly inaccurate as cited by several editors as the Sacramento Bee is a 3rd party source and as a daily newspaper and web site passes the "eminently reliable source" test as well as several other small local and regional newspapers with their associated web sites including several universities (See the above noted "Daily Beacon" at the University of Tennessee, (2010) [36] and also "The Mountain Press" at [www.themountainpress.com]and several towns such as the "News Enterprise," (2010) 09-04-2010 [37]. No more time to discuss. Please make a decision sometime soon. Thanks! Searcher4001 ( talk) 15:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 03:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Article about a musician that is based on unreliable or simply incorrect references.
Keep: She's an up and coming performer in Israel, and I can confirm the Hebrew sources. -- Sreifa ( talk) 09:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (or someone can be BOLD and just merge it) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Seems to lack significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Article created and maintained by a WP:SPA. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 10:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 08:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTDIR – All this list does is list people who have once upon a time participated in a high school track meet. None of these athletes are connected in any other way other than having participated in the same track meet at different times (i.e. "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"). This list has no notable criteria for inclusion. Also, don't let the "known for" column confuse you – what they're known for has nothing to do with the justification of why this list should even exist. Jrcla2 ( talk) 12:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Certainly there are a lot of top level Olympians in this list. I took interest in the subject by noting how many people had come through this event, who had achieved fame through other activities. To be specific, there is a famous baseball player, a basketball player, Olympic volleyball player, the World's Strongest Man, a WWF wrestler, an actor who achieved fame unrelated to his sports activities (plus several who did become entertainers or politicians after being athletes), numerous NFL players, 3 with Super Bowl rings and Hall of Fame credentials. There is nothing random about the selection of these individuals in this list. They had a common experience of being high school track stars, who managed to get to this highest meet of their high school season. I also found it interesting and informative that not all were predestined as super-stars. The fastest woman in the world, Florence Griffith-Joyner only finished 6th. World record holder in the long 400 Intermediate Hurdles Kevin Young was only 3rd in the short High Hurdles event, javelin world record setter (and equipment manufacturer) Bud Held was a pole vaulter. It may be trivial, but I think it ties a lot of information about the development of these athletes. Information that would not be commonly noted by merely scanning the results of this meet. As with any alumni list on WP, there is no claim that these individuals achieved their fame because of their participation in this meet, merely that they were part of (in this case) the event. However, some of them achieved their claim to notably status by records they set at this meet.
The same nominator called this WP:OR, true it is my own work to tie the information from sources together, because no other single source has done that previously. All the research is documented. As with the expectations of any encyclopedic WP article, this is an accumulation of information from numerous sources. The primary source is the most complete set of results of this meet available here. We could waste a lot of space putting in hundreds of references in to show that each of these individuals is who they say they are, with this element in their history. I do not see the nominator or any other individual challenging any of the facts here. Most of the individual specific sourcing is more appropriate in their individual articles than to clutter the references here. As a list, this serves better as a redirect to encourage people to learn more at each wikilinked article. That is what a wikipedia list is supposed to do.
The subject of conferred notability has been raised by this nominator. I have followed what are the standard practices regarding alumni; that they have achieved notability to WP standards. Most institutions that list their alumni categorize them because most are scattered over diverse fields, obviously most on this list are Olympians primarily, so that categorization wouldn't work. The decades idea might, but it will be lopsided towards more recent individuals because there is better documentation on notability for more contemporary individuals, thus more articles. The WP notability standards are a pretty good guide here in both directions. First of all, the criteria for being included on the list is for someone to have achieve the standard of WP notability. The handful of RED links are all individuals who have achieved the notability standard, even if the article for that individual has not yet been created. And the reason they have attained that status is included in the right hand column. I'm leaving space for articles I may have to write in the future. If I need to clip those to save the article as a whole, that is doable and they will be reinserted. Frankly I don't like to create stub, placeholder articles when more can be written.
Drifting further, in WP:NTRACK, one of the means of determining the notability of track and road racing events are deemed notable is by who has competed there . . . that it is a meeting of notable athletes. No other editor has challenged the notability of the event, though with the hostility of this one editor has shown and noting his aggressive repetitive responses here, that is not beyond imagination. By the way, Bobby Bonds was a significant baseball player in his own right, but it would take some knowledge of history to know this--something this editor apparently does not possess. I'd even ask, why is a future major league baseball star, long jumping in a championship track meet during the high school baseball season? It must be important. Without a list like this, it might be unnoticed. Linking this number of notable alumni certainly confirms the significance of the meet.
Regarding Tedder's comment that it should be a category, you and I both know that there is no isolation or selection between the two. Both are acceptable means of linking information here on Wikipedia. They can be used together, interchangeably or singularly depending on who chooses to do the volume of work. Trackinfo ( talk) 23:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Irish language. Consensus is that this does not warrant a standalone article per WP:DICDEF. Sandstein 06:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Per Wikipedia:NOT#DICTIONARY Gnevin ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
<!-Relisted-->
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Insufficient coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy the general or the biographical notability guidelines. -- Lear's Fool 05:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 08:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Company that does not meet the notability requirements according to WP:GNG. Only brief mentions in trade magazines without substantive content to develop a complete article. Warfieldian ( talk) 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC) reply
You are right. There is little to recommend in arguing about WP:BIAS. In any case, I hope that the nominator and the deletors will reconsider after the improvements that we have made. I rest my case and leave it to them to decide what the fate of this article should be. -- User:DiscipleOfKnowledge ( talk) 02:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I wish Sandstein gave a reason for the relisting. It is unnecessary.
The result was delete. This time, we'll use the salt shaker. Courcelles 05:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted article. Fails WP:N and WP:CORP while Google turns up some hits not enough to pass and no news coverage found. Appears to be a parrent company of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viaden Gaming -- RP459 Talk/ Contributions 04:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
I would like to nominate this article for deletion as it does not fulfill any of the notability guidelines. This is further detailed by past editors under the talkpage section entitled "Protected." Thank you. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
*Keep formerly Merge and redirect with
Seventh-day Adventist independent ministries since the history of GYC would mostly likely be lost. Note that subsections are not included yet in
Seventh-day Adventist independent ministries. That article needs some reformatting if we are going to merge GYC, with its historical story, into it. Changed
DonaldRichardSands (
talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC) from
DonaldRichardSands (
talk) 00:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC) For my recommendation see below
DonaldRichardSands (
talk)
13:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
reply
— 50.72.159.224 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
*'Keep Don't be too hard on wikipedia's elusive common sense. lol You will notice above that I favored merging. I think it would be difficult to merge the article and keep the work we have put into it.
DonaldRichardSands (
talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC) For my recommendation see below
DonaldRichardSands (
talk)
13:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
reply
When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the encyclopedia, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, cite Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and explain why doing so will improve Wikipedia in that instance.
Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability
Keep. For a grassroots movement such as GYC (initially dismissed and marginalized) to rise to the level of having such a significant impact on the church (as to gain the support of the President of the world church, editors of the official church magazine, and to inspire young people around the world), the article meets the criteria of notability. However, the current version needs editing, improvement, and additional reliable sources. Many of these sources are available, but were obviously missed in the present article. We must keep the article, but work to improve it.-- HopeAfrique ( talk) 13:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete: I'm sorry but this article just doesn't cut the mustard. Read WP:CORPDEPTH please. notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. And the sources should be reliable. Rather than spending so much time in discussions, let's just discuss if this coverage is significant or not, and it seems pacific to me that it isn't: All the sources are adventist ones (with the exception of "Spectrum", a blog-not reliable). My vote is final. Divide et Impera ( talk) 13:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC) reply
{{
citation}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) –
Lionel (
talk)
03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replyKeep GYC is unique in several ways. Its story has tremendous social implications within any large company or charitable organization. It demonstrates the power of an idea and that a few people, young people, can make a difference in a multi-billion dollar organization. (SDA income for 2009 exceeded $50 billion.) Also, the financial information about GYC demonstrates how volunteerism makes a big difference on the bottom line of a charitable organization. Of the thirty organizations doing similar work to GYC, few if any can report 100% use of funds for their program objectives. This is because the whole group are volunteers. Of the thirty, GYC ranks seventh in total income. These things have not been reported on outside of Adventism except by those third party journals which focus almost entirely on Adventism. And those journals are strongly critical of GYC. The biggest problem is notability outside the church's circle. It seems that no one outside of Adventism knows of the GYC phenomenon. In North American Adventism, this movement is making a big impact especially on the youth. If the Adventist church is notable in American society, then GYC is also notable. Technically, there are plenty of citations which are not beholden to GYC. GYC is not controlled by the Adventist Church. It is a separate charitable institution. All the Adventist articles about GYC support it because of how the GYC organization helps the Church's youth. Of course, one can say that all those Adventist journals are part of a big family. Perhaps, but the Wikipedia policy on third party journals doesn't read like it is addressing such a diverse and complicated family. At some point, we will need to appeal to Wikipedia's administrators and get them to weigh in on the issue. If the article is deleted, life will go on. But, an important story will have been lost to Wikipedia. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 05:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
- You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line.
...
- Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between
<s>
and</s>
after the*
, as in "▪DeleteSpeedy keep".
Keep -- The article is a fascinating look at the birth of a new spiritual "movement" within the Adventist Church. Wikipedia is better with the article than without it. The article was nominated out of sheer spite by a now banned editor, an Adventist himself who hates any Adventist more "conservative" than he; on that basis alone it should be kept (no article should be targeted for deletion just because of someone's agenda). It is difficult for a "movement" within a church to meet the strictest standards of notability because purely independent RSs just don't care; they only get interested when there is conflict and controversy. But that doesn't mean GYC is not notable. As Donald Sands says, you have to understand the different "currents" in the SDA to realize that an article in Spectrum magazine, for example, would be as critical and "objective" about the GYC as would an article in The New York Times. So, I recommend flexibility in applying the Notability standards here. The published financial statements also bolster the claim of notability and make the article more interesting. Keep for all the reasons given by Donald Sands. Keep! -- Kenatipo speak! 19:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Thebladesofchaos ( talk) 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be notable by the standards of WP:MUSIC. A cursory search for coverage in reliable secondary sources turned up nothing (just blogs, last.fm listings, and lyrics sites). Not surprising, as according to the article the band only ever played 2 shows and only had 1 release, which they put out themselves. IllaZilla ( talk) 20:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
XFD discussion should be reinstated - only source is youtube channel Reichsfürst ( talk) 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
This is a non notable brand of biscuits. The sources are PRIMARY. There are no 3rd party sources that indicate why it is notable. Lipsabove33 ( talk) 17:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 01:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Lacks reliable sources to establish encyclopedic notability of a musician. Current claim to notability is by being a member of a production team that produced a track on Twista's album, Adrenaline Rush 2007. That's a fairly tenuous claim to notability, especially because notability is not inherited. tedder ( talk) 15:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
not sure how to respond to this, but he was the producer for the song which was slated to be twistas 3rd single, the production team were the ones who helped him place it. but he has also produced a single for Layzie Bone & Bow Wow, all of Lil Scrappy's next singles, and is working in the studio with everyone from trey songz, to bun b. only listed that song first as that was the one who gave him his step into the industry
User:Thearkatek —Preceding
undated comment added
18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC).
reply
The result was keep. Only because there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I was tempted to supervote a redirect close per WP:BLP but the article does have 2 sources in "external links". However, more sources and inline citations are needed so no prejudice against a quick (but not speedy) renomination if these issues aren't addressed. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The article's subject is only notable for being the mother of an illegitimate child of a prince... so essentially I'm nominating this on WP:NOTINHERITED grounds. This is similar to Tamara Rotolo. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 13:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
This event doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. No references have been added. Doesn't appear to have received significant coverage from reliable sources. JRheic ( talk) 00:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. despite two relists we seem no further forward and it seems to me that this sits in the discretionary zone. Since even the keep votes accepts the sourcing is below par I'm going to delete but am happy to userfy if anyone wants to reuse the material elsewhere Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
not exactly a musical artist but fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews [46], nor could i find anything but directory listings in google. [47]. even less when I limited it to Australia only [48]. not to be confused with American band Zoetrope (band). LibStar ( talk) 02:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of European supercentenarians. Courcelles 05:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
(a) Nearly all of the sourced information on this page is duplicated in individual articles. (b) What few source documents are used rely entirely on a single website. In the nominator's view, the website relied upon is a work-in-progress and citation to it constitutes prohibited original research and synthesis. (In fairness, the World's Oldest People WikiProject has been unable to reach consensus about whether the website is a reliable source and the nominator's view is, numerically, a minority one.) (c) Of the six footnotes, three are from a document that has not been updated since 2007. (d) Most of the cells in the second table, Oldest Swiss person by canton, are empty. If Gertrude Stein saw this page, she'd likely conclude that, like the Oakland, California of her time, "[t]he trouble ... is that when you get there, there isn't any there there. David in DC ( talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Cirt ( talk) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply
It seems to be a copyright vio because, some entire paragraphs have directly from the other source! roh. ( talk) 11:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 08:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The article's subject is only notable for being the mother of an illegitimate child of a prince... so essentially I'm nominating this on WP:NOTINHERITED grounds. This nomination is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Coste. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to The Bad Girls Club (season 7). joe decker talk to me 15:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Relevant information can be found on The Bad Girls Club (season 7) article, merely a fansite and completely unsourced. AJona1992 ( talk) 03:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sources presented presented have shown the article to fit the criteria of the general notability guideline, namely, significant coverage in reliable sources. Noting the one delete !vote on this AFD is actually from the nominator, hence the reason for myself closing this nomination. ( non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
No independent references in > a year. no claim to nobility. web search reveals no significant covreage. Stuartyeates ( talk) 04:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
This list represents a rather arbitrary intersection of topics, and is exactly the sort of list noted at WP:OC#EGRS. Why are NBA players from Canada specifically such an important topic that one could create a stand-alone article about it, I am not sure. That such a list also exists outside of Wikipedia is not to me terribly compelling, in that one can find random lists outside of Wikipedia on many ephemeral and esoteric intersections as this. Do we need lists of every athelete in a professional sports league by their a) Religion b) Race c) Country of Birth d) model of car they drive e) whether or not they have tattoos f) any other random characteristic which they may have that isn't really related to their reason for being notable? Probably not. Jayron 32 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable book published through a pay-to-publish company. No RS coverage; the CNN source is a poorly written "student log" by one of the students mentioned in this story, not an actual CNN piece. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Big Dom 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
There are no sources supplied that even indicate that this show does or will exist. There is nothing on Fox (the alleged broadcaster) about it. My Google search revealed nothing about the show. It appears to be a hoax. SQGibbon ( talk) 01:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
There are no sources supplied that even indicate that this show does or will exist. There is nothing on Fox (the alleged broadcaster) about it. My Google search revealed nothing about the show. It appears to be a hoax. SQGibbon ( talk) 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Cirt ( talk) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. The article was proposed for deletion on 10 June, but since an earlier prod was removed this needs to be discussed. Jafeluv ( talk) 08:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Autobiography/advertisement that arguably does not meet WP:N. Remarkable mismatch between what article says and what the footnoted third-party sources say. If kept, article should be moved to Jeff Millar (attorney) to distinguish from the much more notable Jeff Millar, who was a reporter for the Houston Chronicle from 1964-2000 and co-author of a successful comic strip, Tank McNamara. THF ( talk) 02:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
I do not believe being considered as a member of a notable band (without actually joining that band) meets WP:MUSICBIO, even if mentioned on mtv.com. The other band this person was a member of is not notable. Singularity42 ( talk) 00:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC) reply
I believe that this person is notable. Dave Wiener is a signed musician, and guitarist for Steve Vai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.136.235 ( talk) 19:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Game convention of unclear notability. Article is unreferenced since 2006 and I am unable to find significant coverage in third party sources. Google search for "Conquest Games Convention"-wikipedia results in mostly Wikipedia scrapers and some bulletin board postings. Prod was contested. ... discospinster talk 03:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Game convention of unclear notability. Article is unreferenced since 2006 and I am unable to find significant coverage in third party sources. Google search for "Fauxcon"-wikipedia results in a lot of directory listings and forum postings. Prod was contested. ... discospinster talk 03:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Cirt ( talk) 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername ( talk) 06:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:NALBUMS. unreferenced for 7 years, although Finnish article reveals just 1 source. at best 2 gnews hits, google just reveals directory listings. allmusic site provides no review or rating. LibStar ( talk) 08:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply
fails WP:NALBUMS. nothing in gnews and google just reveals directory listings. could not find evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Allmusic doesn't even bother to review or rate it. [49]. LibStar ( talk) 08:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 08:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Organization of questionable notability. I cannot verify the San Francisco Examiner citation and the other cited sources do not seem WP:RS-appropriate — Scien tizzle 11:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
I have been unable to locate reliable source coverage at a significant level to establish notability through my search of google and bing. ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 16:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Cirt ( talk) 00:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Classical pianist who does not, as far as I can tell, meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. The brief smattering of coverage that can be found with Google includes a review in the New York Times of a CD of piano music performed by her; but the review is mostly about the composer rather than the pianist. Brigandi is also mentioned in computing magazines regarding an online dispute between her and her husband. The dispute has also spread to the Wikipedia page that is the subject of this AfD, but still does not appear to make her meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Her notability would be as a pianist, not as a participant in a marital dispute. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 17:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
yes; in agreement. deletion recommended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.225.116 ( talk) 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The article has been improved since the nomination, and the subsequent "keep" opinions have remained unopposed. Sandstein 06:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
From the contested PROD: No indication of meeting notability guidelines. Article creator has an apparent WP:conflict of interest. Eeekster ( talk) 18:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Chrisjldoran ( talk) 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Some minor comments on the above points. Hope they are helpful: reply
The result was delete. The standard for inclusion is sourcing and very few of the keep votes even address this so they have very little weight in the close. The delete side show they have considered the sources and that they are not good enough and that hasn't been refuted so the consensus is delete Spartaz Humbug! 08:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The article fails to indicate why the subject is notable, and I suspect the game fails WP:GNG. The article also fails to cite any outside sources. Inks.LWC ( talk) 23:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
In this case we have a very famous corporation, one of the top few most popular game studios in Japan, having released (more than a decade ago) a very unique product that lets people make their versions of a game which a number of people will assert is the best video game ever to be created so far in human history. Sure it's in Japanese, but that's a minor stepping block in this day and age. Sure it's more than a decade old, so finding brick and mortar sources is going to be next to impossible. But anyway here is the best and last argument I can find [57] image [58], what we have is a collection of From Software products on an official website. The product in question is the biggest box in the photograph. It's hard to deny the product exists and is not notable to people seeking information. Consider a person who just enjoyed King's Field, and comes to Wikipedia to find information. A single mini paragraph on the main KF page saying there is software for making your own KF games and nothing more is just going to lead to frustration. Who would not want to read more about that without having to go outside of Wikipedia for basic information? There are hundreds of classic PlayStation games on the Japanese PlayStation Network, all of them are better than the current gen PlayStation games for the most part, but 99% are less notable than Sword of Moonlight. What's on display here is a policy of ignorance when taken to the extreme. Good day gentlemen -- 67.54.192.52 ( talk) 01:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
EDITED: The RPG Gamer website article is not bad, and half the page is given to the topic here, though it's misleading at places. Unfortunately it's not dated like so many publications, though I guess it must be from around the same time as those games were being release. I assume the Famitsu source is to a magazine rather than a web article, but even if there was the Famitsu article online somewhere or the magazine number could be discovered, I don't see how that would be worked into the Wikipedia article if that is a must for some reason. I mean we are talking about something if people don't believe the veracity of the claims, they can just go out and find a copy of the software and see for themselves -- 67.54.192.38 ( talk) 12:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles 05:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete this is little more than a resume with no refernces and little content
The result was keep. — Cirt ( talk) 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete This amounts to an index of the issues of a single comic book title across multiple volumes. While the title character, the publication, and some of the story arcs are notable in their own right, that does not extend to an index of 600+ issues. J Greb ( talk) 00:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Keep: All points listed under index does not show article is in violation. This falls in line with other wiki pages showing list of episodes for television programming when the list becomes extremely unwieldy to be listed on the main page. Comic listing is neat and can be cited. The page may need revision, but deletion does not appear to be the best or correct option. MichaelJPierce ( talk) 19:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Courcelles 05:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Reasoning was (and still is) I can find no reliable sources outside of the local area, so this group fails WP:ORG. Article contains no independent significant coverage in reliable sources (only links to other such organizations, which isn't coverage) and I was not able to find any to establish the notability of this organization. ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply