- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge/Redirect to Continuing medical education (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Promotional education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. Reasoning was that while there are some sources that use this term, there doesn't seem to be anything written about this term. Article is therefore original research on a non-notable neologism, and does not cite any reliable sources. Article's creator apparently thought peppering the article with {{fact}} tags would make up for the lack of sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
MERGE - Beeblebrox. I see you have recommended the entire article for deletion on the basis that it is a non-notable neologism. Having reviewed the criteria for notability and neologisms, I see that this article more fully falls under the auspices of the article on continuing medical education and does not merit its own article. With your consensus, I will move the content for promotional education, defined as "non-CME" education activity, to the CME page. I would like to add additional insight to the CME page about non-accredited medical education and cover additional information regarding the public debate over industry sponsorship of educational activities. Let me know if this is an amenable solution. I apologize if I have created a controversial thread as I have not been trying to create debate or contention. Thanks, Pnautilus (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds like a fine idea, I'll redirect it to Continuing medical education. And no need to apologize, these things happen all over Knowledge (XXG) all the time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
|}
The result was Delete. I note that mentions in notable media are not the same as making a subject notable; sometimes, as in this case, they merely confirm the existence of the subject. Frank | talk 04:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Fails WP:MUSIC. It comes very close on multiple points, but that just isn't good enough. The band has released multiple albums, but these don't help with the clause on albums, number five, which requires multiple albums on a major or important independent label. Of the three albums two have been self-released and one is on an unimportant indie label. The band has also been on several radio stations, which might seem to fulfill clause 11, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.". The band hasn't been placed on rotation however - simply played. The radio stations in question hardly qualify as "major". The band has played on notable tours, but doesn't seem to have gained major coverage from this (when major is defined, per WP:N, as multiple detailed sources). They have mentions, yes, but that is exactly what you'd expect and not good enough. The band appears to fulfill the most important bit of WP:MUSIC ("Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable") at first glance, but look again. Although the article is referenced multiple times they're all references to blogs, other non-notable sites such as minor internet radio stations, the record label and self-submitting sources such as garageband and youtube. In conclusion: fails WP:MUSIC, smack with hammer. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable teen actor. Only one role. Created by a known hoaxer, although this is apparently not a hoax, though the original edit with several totally unsourced and unsourceable credits was a bit of a hoax. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @162 · 02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I deprodded as it had previously been prodded and deprodded, but I can't find more than one passing mention to this guitarist in a reliable source. Bearing in mind that the Singapore media might have some hard to find coverage, perhaps someone will find sources I didn't - but I doubt it. Fences&Windows 22:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was nominator withdrew. MS (Talk|Contributions) 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
And? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.114.217 (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @162 · 02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
no real claim to notability. football player who has not played for his country or at professional level, fails WP:ATHLETE no significant independant coverage, only club bio pages and the like. ClubOranje 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I've converted the prod for this into AfD, mainly on the grounds that the article has been on Knowledge (XXG) for so long - since April 2003 - and has been edited by so many editors that deletion can't be totally uncontroversial. I have looked for reliable sources myself, and while it has been cited in news media and discussed in passing once or twice, nothing has been written about it in depth - at least, nothing I can find. Prod reasoning was "Does not appear to meet notability standards, and does not appear to meaningfully assert notability. They run syndicated pieces from a few notable authors--that's nowhere near the same as having Thomas Sowell as a direct contributor" and "No indication that subject meets the notability criteria for web content." Fences&Windows 20:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
An Unreferenced BLP and even if it were to be referenced I doubt that this person would meet the notability guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 19:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was deleted as a hoax. ➲ REDVERS 07:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable book lacking GNEWS and GHits of substance. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nominator; article rewrite renders deletion rationale invalid (non-admin closure). I42 (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Flag of the Southern Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Quoting WP:FICTION: "The single most important rule about coverage of fiction on Knowledge (XXG) is that fiction is covered as a cultural artifact in the real world. We are primarily interested not in things that happened to imaginary people, but rather in the social impact that given works of fiction have - whether that impact be direct, cultural, or artistic. All aspects of an article on fiction must work to establish real-world importance, or to provide appropriate context for understanding real-world importance. Those that do not should be removed." This article clearly fails because it is only the poem. I42 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wikisource because the poem appears to be out of copyright, and Wikisource has other works by this author but not this particular one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep after a rewrite. A notable work by one of Australia's most renowned poets, Henry Lawson. The poem itself should be taken to Wikisource. -- Mattinbgn\ 02:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment started a rewrite. For the information of others, the article looked like this when it was nominated. -- Mattinbgn\ 03:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Mattinbgn. Rebecca (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @162 · 02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
An unreferenced list of non notable anime characters Magioladitis (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: This Afd is on whatever it is relevant for Knowledge (XXG) to have a separate characters list for the Shinkyoku Sōkai Polyphonica not on the list content quality and verifiability which i agree are not good. --KrebMarkt 15:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @162 · 02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The only refs I could find for this supposed tv show were blogs and "gossip" pages, and the most recent of those suggests it's not even going to be shown: . Unverified and non-notable; delete. I42 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. --Pedro thy master (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was no consensus. The keep "votes" far outnumber the deletes, but are often laden with weak arguments. On the other hand, the nominator and subsequent participants pushing for deletion mainly cite notability issues, which is a valid concern, but overall I see no strong consensus either way. –Juliancolton | 17:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
List-cruft, describes a whole bunch of *minor* characters. The game's protagonists each have their own articles, and all other pertinent characters could be discussed in the plot summaries of each article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep. He's president of the area's bird group, he's a writer, he's a leading naturalist...what more do you want? If that's not enough, even the laziest editor can find dozens more reliable sources on Google. Please do at least the barest research before nominating (or voting) for a deletion. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. He seems notable enough, albeit locally, as a naturalist and broadcaster, as well as being a travel writer. Maias (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Note: There are now a dozen or so references, though the article still requires the attention of a Scilly Islands devotee who's willing to put some work into fleshing it out. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @162 · 02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article:
AFD closed three days ago and article deleted as advertising. This still seems like a biography that is so overly filled with personal detail as to constitute advocacy for the subject. Furthermore, I checked one reference (to the New York Times) and it didn't seem to actually discuss the subject. Finally, I doubt the notability of someone whose biggest claim to fame is finishing third in a Congressional primary in 1990. In any case, I think this would benefit from a full 7 day discussion. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
As I posted in the article's talk page... I read the logs and entries objecting to my article. On "notability," the man campaigned and nearly won for US Congress in 1990 on an openly racist ticket, and has vowed to run again. CBS, NBC, ABC, the Washington Post, the London Times, BBC-TV, and other major media gave him important coverage recently. De Nugent is very prominent among white nationalists, and may run for president in 2012. Race and racism is still notable today. Google has de Nugent at 1.5 million hits -- off and on, bizarrely -- and Bing, the new Microsoft search engine, has "John de Nugent" at 2.3 million hits. So he is notable. Is the article unambiguous advertising? I find it hard to imagine that an article detailing a man's encounter with child molesters, suicide attempt, divorces, expulsion from the most prominent website in his racist movement, and financial travails is "advertising," unless it is negative advertising against him. Still, I have attempted to make this article as neutral as possible, and welcome any attempts to further this goal. I personally contacted De Nugent about the photo copyright issue and he has informed me that he sent photo copyright permissions to Knowledge (XXG), on July 17, 2009, and Knowledge (XXG) has failed to acknowledge that email and send him a ticket number. He has agreed to release his photos under the Creative Commons Share-Alike License. The man obviously has the copyright on his own childhood picture, on photos of his television coverage that he purchased from a Nashville TV video service for $500, and for the logo of his own "Solutrean" organization. I am sure that the new version of my article meets any good-faith objections.BobKostro (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @162 · 02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Rex Hamilton only has a minor role in a TV series. All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Joe Chill (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. A non-notable Reality TV "star" who has gained no or little press coverage outside of his/her capacity on the programme. The article contradicts itself at various points - such as claiming that his/her school teachers refered to Sam as a female before she was a cross-dresser - and this makes me feel that this article is one big joke. See also: List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK)#Sam. DJ 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep based on clear consensus that the nominator's deletion argument is invalid -- Samir 21:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hattie (elephant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Cannot find established notability beyond two brief mentions on old copies of the New York Times. Google search turns up nothing relevant. GraYoshi2x► 17:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- You seriously need to brush up on your Google skills. I have suggested this before, and some have found it snarky. But I am assuming good faith, and suggesting taking an inexpensive course on Internet searching, they are offered at your local Community college, or at University of Phoenix Online. While I have only added two references, there are dozens including an obituary in the New York Times. I stopped writing the article when it was threatened with "speedy deletion" as not containing any claim to notability. Please, please, please, perform the minimal due diligence before you nominate, and type the name in Google, don't just look at the references I have added for the stub. The profile in the New York Times Magazine already listed is a full half page article on Hattie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to remind you to avoid blatant personal attacks. Inferring that I am stupid is not how you settle a dispute. In any case I've removed the copyvio text from this AfD as it serves no other purpose but to clog up this page. Occasional bi-yearly mentions of a zoo animal notability does not make. GraYoshi2x► 18:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you are certifying that you searched and found nothing, there are only two conclusions: you didn't actually perform a search, or you did perform one and didn't find any of the ones that I found that establish notability. If it is the latter, an inexpensive course would help hone your skills, it wasn't meant to be derogatory at all, so please don't take it that way. You may also want to take a seminar on copyright law, you have deleted what is below three times. Anything published in 1922 or before is in the public domain. Any of these abstracts would fall under fair use, it is the same amount text Google uses under fair use. And please stop deleting the information I am adding to the page. You are never supposed to be deleting information written by others in AFDs. You are also in violation of 3RR. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- If the site still exists and it has a copyright policy with no exceptions, then it is NOT in the public domain. GraYoshi2x► 18:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is fair use - small snippets useful only for citation. Also, please stop with the arguing about each other's wikiquette and research skills here. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the article or the AfD? Because if you look back on the history of this page, you'll see that he copied pages worth of text straight from the NY Times site. GraYoshi2x► 18:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Material published 1922 or prior is in the public domain under US copyright law. You can read about it in Knowledge (XXG). A copyright notice on the New York Times website does not reclaim an expired copyright. The New York Times recognizes this and publishes the full pdf file for those articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - enough press coverage to establish notability. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Please don't argue here, unless you want to argue about deletion! But, in my opinion, the page needs to be nursed to health - in other words, it needs more content. I didn't know anything about the elephant before reading the article. Now that I've read the article, I know that she was described as quite intelligent. Why is that? Could she communicate with humans more than regular elephants? Any tricks? Mathematical skills? Please provide more good content if you can! Kotiwalo (talk)
- Keep The added links confirm significant third party media coverage. Dream Focus 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. An obit in the NYT is often used as a clear indication of notability for AfDs of articles on humans. I think that should hold equally well, or maybe even more so, for animals, since full obituaries for them are so much rarer. As for who is winning the wiki-ability talent contest, the nominator for not knowing how to perform Google news searches or Norton for copying and pasting the contents of a search into this AfD rather than just posting a link, I take no position. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes. I could have done that, and will next time. Maybe I need a refresher course too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not sure what terms the nominator used in the Google search, although I can see where a news search would have turned up mostly New York Times articles. My search of "central+park"&as_brr=0| Google books] indicates to me that, like the pandas in the Washington zoo now, this was a favorite of children a century ago. Part of the notoriety was that Hattie the Elephant was trained by teenager Hattie Snyder, whose father was the zookeeper. Anyway, a newspaper archive search shows that between 1904 and 1922, there were stories about Hattie the Elephant in newspapers nationwide. Notable then, notable now. Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a1, insufficient context. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Elemnon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article gives no indication of notability - or what it is supposed to be about. google does nothing to enlighten me. noq (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - Page has no meaningful content other than some bizarre alphabet table that doesn't even make any sense. GraYoshi2x► 18:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD A1/A3. –Juliancolton | 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @162 · 02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Nélio was under contract with a notable club but no source he made any debut on Brazilian nationwide level Matthew_hk tc 17:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Article fails WP:POLITICIAN. No references to secondary sources. Article has been speedied twice and the same content keeps getting reposted. Dismas| 17:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't that indicate that this person is noteworthy?--Loudes13 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @163 · 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced non-notable toy. I wasn't able to locate any significant coverage, in fact there was practically nothing on it whatsoever beyond the mere fact that the product existed - the only thing I could find for this is it's commercial on youtube. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. No significant coverage in third party sources, and while the article rescue squadron and many others are keen to vote keep, they offer no new convincing arguments. Finding nothing to assert notability on LexisNexis is pretty damning, and I would expect a gentleman from this field to have several interviews or articles appearing on it. As it stands, I recommend waiting a year or two until he's advanced his career. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Unable to find any significant coverage in unrelated reliable sources. There is a Robert Petrick who appears to be notable, but that is a convicted North Carolina murderer, not a graphic artist. Bongomatic 00:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
There's a bit of a problem with this because unless you own the books which are used as references you can't really comment on their relevance or importance. However, Eye Twisters especially seems to be a collection of artwork, instead of coverage of the artist. Maybe the person who created this article would like to post what is written in the books so that the rest of us can judge more accurately?
|
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @163 · 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
non notable dead horse, not speediable, prod removed WuhWuzDat 16:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, any renaming discussion can take place on the talk page. (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
POV fork, having argued successfully to remove coup from the title of the main article a certain editor created this POV fork in order to reinsert the coup POV. Knowledge (XXG) has no place for POV forks. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep. This article was never intended as a POV fork, but simply as a sub-article for 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, which was otherwise becoming too long (was tagged with Template:Long). This is common practice. If you have an issue with the title (as hinted by the fact you moved it a couple of times), that's a different issue not warranting deletion. When this article was created, the main article had the "coup d'état" title and in the text, not "constitutional crisis", so it simply cannot have been a "POV fork in order to reinsert the coup POV". --LjL (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, speedy keep per WP:SK#2.4 --LjL (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep/Merge with the parent article- the subject is notable and encyclopedic, so the question isn't whether the information be deleted, but where it should be presented. Given the amount of detail put into it, I'm thinking keeping it separate would probably be best, but if it can be trimmed down and merged, thats fine too. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and rename - This seems to be an encyclopedic article covering notable events. Coup d'état to Constitutional Crisis would mean it was in line with the main article on the event. Panyd 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Except that the main article has been renamed as "constitutional crisis" only as a compromise, with part of the compromise being that it should have a "coup d'état section". It also says it's called a coup d'état in the first line. Part of the reasoning was basically that "constitutional crisis" would encompass more than just the "coup d'état" events; on the other hand, I think this article (and also the one about International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup, which keeps getting renamed, too) really is about the coup d'état. --LjL (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep but may require cleanup - it is getting long also. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. My understanding of what happened is that "crisis" was adopted because there was so much going on in Honduras beyond the seizure of power itself by the Micheletti faction (what has been termed the "coup"), but that the prevailing international view that there had been a "coup" had not been rejected. This is why the first line of the main article reads "The 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis or the 2009 Honduran coup d'état..." In any case, I don't want to see what's been put on this page deleted. If the page must be deleted, the information contained on the page should be transferred back to the main article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I think it's a good idea for Knowledge (XXG) to have detail about the coup. This was the first Latin American military coup in a long time.
This is disingenuous: "having argued successfully to remove coup from the title of the main article a certain editor created this".
A certain editor created this article before coup was removed from the title of the other article.
This is not a "POV fork." There is a section in that other article entitled, "Coup d'état." Same "POV". -- Rico 04:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC) - Keep. This page personally helped me to better understand the events of the coup. Its not a POV fork (although there may be POV in the article, I don't know), its a helpful page that better details the events of the first coup in Latin America in decades. Onopearls 04:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If kept, this must be renamed. Since the removal of the president appears to be constitutional and legal, it's not a coup. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. This is a disruptive and misleading nomination by an editor who keeps renaming the article against consensus. The article is not a POV fork but a subarticle; it was spun off from 2009 Honduran coup d'etat, which a highly vocal group of editors subsequently succeeding forcing a rename of, despite a lack of clear consensus. The nominator's insistence that the same disputed renaming arguments apply to this page has not met with support on the talk page, and this deletion nomination is the result. Rd232 09:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Unless the nominator explains why he considers the article a "POV fork". Disagreement on the article's title is no reason for deletion. JRSP (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @163 · 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
coatrack for news event. All independent sources are about the news event, not the "resort". Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This was proposed for merger a month ago, to no result. In practice it is being used as a content fork of the main article, Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories, which also has a list of accusers. The same material is largely repeated in both articles, so what's happening in practice is that this article gets the version where the hoax has been proven to be real. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @163 · 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article:
It is proposed that this article be redirected to List of Intellivision games. The same editor has contributed loads of similar "articles". If I knew how, I would nominate them collectively for similar action, or something more drastic. Favonian (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was merge to Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - no reliable sources establish any notability for this fictional company. Otto4711 (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. By DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | 15:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Psycho Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
seems to qualify for Speedy Deletion under criteria A9: no indication of notability, and the band's page does not exist. However, I'm being conservative rather than bold by going through the AfD process. No links to the page from other articles. Petershank (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete I feel pretty strongly this qualifies under WP:CSD#A9. I've tagged it. Jujutacular contribs 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:GNG & WP:NSONG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Harlem675 12:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @163 · 02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Article about unremarkable song where the lyrics are present in their entirety. 08:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Appears to be blatant copyright infringement of the song's lyrics. ~ mazca 11:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Where I Belong Lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Knowledge (XXG) is not the appropriate place to host lyrics, and it appears to be a copy of lyricwiki.org, which is not affiliated with the Wikimedia foundation. 08:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Knowledge (XXG) is not a lyrics database. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 08:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - self-evident copyvio. MER-C 10:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was - Deleted due to inclement weather - Peripitus (Talk) 12:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Rimo Haq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Puff piece for a 17-year-old author. Claims various extremely unlikely forms of notability. rspεεr (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nominator, I was unable to find anything on the Author. Seems to fit WP:CSD#A7 as well. 09:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it's not A7, because the article spends basically the entire time indicating why its subject is important or significant. I don't think it's true, but that's beside the point. rspεεr (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Likewise unable to find anything to verify this, WP:HOAX. Jujutacular contribs 11:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Jujutacular. -- Spireguy (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing at all on the internet; probable hoax. Also, I find the page's history very interesting. Notice how it was written by three different users without gaps in timing? The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 14:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:HOAX. GraYoshi2x► 17:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:HOAX. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - WP:HOAX and A7Delete - as a hoax Panyd 18:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, the article does not qualify under A7 (it claims importance and signifigance), and WP:HOAX is not speedy deletion criterion. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 18:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Whoops Panyd 20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, there is a Template:Db-hoax. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, for blatant hoaxes (which classify as vandalism). However, this is not a blatant hoax, because it is believable. An example of a blatant hoax is, "John Doe is a 594,053 year old man who is the oldest living person in the world", because no sensible person could believe that. However, the claims made in this article are not so outrageous that they couldn't be believed. There are people who have written books as children. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 23:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: WP:SNOW. An apparent hoax . — Rankiri (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete hoaxalicious. The fact that there's no ghits for the "author" or any of "his" "books" is pretty good evidence that this is a hoax made by someone who was bored. Doc StrangeLogbook 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Author name not found on AbeBooks, Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, nor Amazon.ca. No interesting hits in Google. Not notable much less being anywhere close to the claims in the article. There is a facebook page for a Rimo Haq which says she's at St George Girls High School '09. Two of the three people editing the Rimo Haq article are also editing the St. George Girls' High School page indicating this is likely a hoax page pretending that Rimo is both a guy, and world famous. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\ 02:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Per nom., WP:V, WP:HOAX and WP:SNOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Song (talk • contribs) 04:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:HOAX and WP:BULLSHIT. Predicting snow. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article:
I am also nominating the following related pages:
information is completely in-universe and doesn't conform to WP:PLOT and In-universe policies. This is better served in a small episode summary on a list of episodes page. Notability is also questioned where this warrants its own article - its merely one section of a fictional television show. Ejfetters (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was no consensus. —Sean Whitton / 13:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
This person doesn't deserve to have her own page. She isn't notably in any way and should either be deleted or merged into the Health care reform in the United States. I feel we should just delete this article Fire 55 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Her
Rename. The case is now sufficiently notable that the public has a right to a balanced account. That being said, this is only a small part of this woman's life and an article under her name would be problematic for all the reasons mentioned above. I suggest renaming the article something like "The Holmes-Advertisement Controversy". (Perhaps someone can find a better title, ideally one that doesn't use her name, though the fact that Holmes is not this woman's professional name may mitigate that problem.) Bucketsofg 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @163 · 02:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Not notable. The article claims the person is a grandmaster (which would make him almost notable) but that is not supported by his FIDE card. In fact he seems to be only an International Master, which is not notable enough to be in Knowledge (XXG) SyG (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @163 · 02:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by a WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related 51give.com. I am also nominating the following related pages apart of the same non notable spam campaign:
Riddled with press releases and SEO "self-links to their site and blogs, Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete - As far as I'm concerned, This does not meet WP:GNG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlem675 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, WP:NFT, WP:NAD, WP:NEO. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Prududed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per the article: "A word that was created in 2009". WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO, WP:N, WP:V. Author contested the PROD. I42 (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - No reliable sources to verify it, fails WP:V & WP:N. Out with the trash I say! Harlem675 07:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Not notable. Lots of people show up in the Venona papers, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The papers themselves do not prove the guilt of anyone involved, as attested to by the relevant article (Venona papers) and the presence of an American president. They contain only decryptions and code names by which the Soviets referred to various people, including Democratic administration officials and the commander-in-chief himself (although his entry was deleted from the List of Americans in the Venona papers, the entry of little-known-people who figure there does not get equivalent favor). A great lot of the Category:American spies for the Soviet Union consists of similar articles based on material by conservative historians Haynes & Klehr, who identify these people as spies based on their reading of the Venona papers. Even if their conclusions are stellar, the majority of the entries are stubs based on passing mention on the material of Haynes & Kler. In fact, as it is written right now, this article is devoid of any scholarly information, other than transmitting the accusation of spying and including its subject in the American spies for the Soviet Union category, populated by many similar nonnotables included on the basis of Haynes & Klehr's conclusions. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was redirect to A Little More Personal (Raw). –Juliancolton | 00:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Fails WP:NSONG as it has not charted, received awards, or been covered. Pokerdance 04:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Article fails to establish notability - a couple of dated news articles reporting on the then-latest buzz word is hardly sufficient. Article attempts to coin a term - fails per WP:SYNTH Ronnotel (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 18:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This list offers nothing over the associated categories. There is no sorting or contextual information, and I do not see any that would be particularly applicable. Mintrick (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @163 · 02:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Deprodded without reason. No confirmed tracks, singles, release date or sufficient background. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Taylor Karras (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @164 · 02:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article:
This page is essentially an advertisement for a product. I do not think there is enough information from independent sources to rewrite this article with a NPOV since most available information is from the manufacturer. It also has notability problems and my research could not find any information from reliable sources that distinguish this product from other water/surfactant-based fire extinguishers. Sophitessa (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL, redirect contested by Bwmoll3, who doesn't believe in redirects and is constantly rude at me for no reason at all when I harm "his" articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 03:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This clearly can't stand as a standalone article and the option of merge is only valid if there is a clear target. The keep side essentially go for notability by assertion or inheritance or simple disagreement with the GNG and the delete side cite guildelines and policy so by measuring consensus against policy this turns into a delete. Should a consensus on a merge target emerge, im more then willing to review this with a view to merging, Spartaz 05:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Radiance War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The Radiant Seas is a marginally notable book; its current article is nothing but an ample plot summary. Someone decided that even more plot summary was needed and created this article about a plot element in that book. This "war" has no notability outside of the book, and this much plot summary is not needed on Knowledge (XXG). The relevant policies are WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. Attempts to simply redirect were contested by the main contributor. Savidan 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | 20:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Merge into the relevant section of Catherine Asaro, trimming most of what's here in the process. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The major driving point in a series of notable(they have their own wikipedia articles don't they?) novels. Dream Focus 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete — utterly non-notable ;) Jack Merridew 08:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep since I disagree with the proposed wp:fiction guidelines and hold by inherited notability. And this is definitely a central article to the whole Saga of the Skolian Empire series. BTW, if the result will be a merge, it should be into Saga of the Skolian Empire, and not Catherine Asaro. 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Debresser (talk)
- merge I think we have to accept the work as firmly, not marginally, notable on the basis of the awards listed in its article. In that case major olot elements should have a discussion, but generally not a separate article. I do not hold by the general concept of inherited notability, if only because there's no place where it would stop. What we need is a compromise on what is and is not worth an article/section/redirect/deletion. Putting in every plot element of every novel in this much detail is nonsense, if this is an encyclopedia. Eliminating them entirely & not having even redirects is equal nonsense. AfDs by their nature make it a choice between the two equally unsuitable extremes. A compromise would avoid them. DGG (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, they don't. AFD only determines whether an administrator pushes the delete button. Ordinary editorial actions, such as redirection, merger, rewriting, or indeed expansion, are within the remits of all editors, even those without accounts. Deciding to not have an administrator push a delete button does not preclude deciding elsewhere, in the normal way, on some ordinary editorial action to be taken. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence of independent notability. Mintrick (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to be about a satiric memorandum prepared for an organization, but the paper would appear to be either non-notable or an unencyclopedic topic, or possibly even a hoax. Ssilvers (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was userfied. –Juliancolton | 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Chapstick lesbian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nomination: article re-creation and contested prod. The article seems to have little salvageable content, and is written in a manifestly unencyclopedic fashion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect protection. This is a lesser known variant on Lipstick lesbian and after removing all the un-reliable sourcing and original research
we have one sourced sentence which can be sent off to that articlewe have nothing. Protection may or may not be needed for the redirect but the consensus, IMHO, got it right several years ago and little has changed to show this term has become into widespread usage - likely because lipstick lesbian has fallen in use as being too ill-defined and Chapstick being tied to a brand that has limited appeal across cultures.Move the one sentenceRedirect to Lipstick lesbianand get rid of the rest. -- Banjeboi 01:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | 01:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect to Lipstick lesbian; not enough evidence that this variation is notable. JJL (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Full-protect and redirect to Lipstick lesbian. Pokerdance 04:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and protect This reads as more of an attack page to me on the subject than an anywhere near serious discussion of the subject, and the term is hardly as notable as the original lipstick term. Nate • (chatter) 05:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and protect Agree with Nate. It's tone is way too close to an attack page. Jujutacular contribs 06:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Redirect to Lipstick lesbian and protect Unverifiable. What can be verified (that the term exists and its origin) fits better in the context of a larger article.Sjö (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect protection. I took time to go through every source, and apart from the first these were all blogs, wikis, dating sites, etc. The only exception was of dubious reliability, and amounted to one short sentence - which was more appropriate for Wictionary than an encyclopedia article. I tagged then deleted all the unreliable materail, then placed a speedy deletion tag on the grounds of WP:NOTDIC - which was reverted by the sole creating editor back to the earlier unsourced, unreliable, inaccurate, synthetic entry that apart from one mention of the term was all WP:OR. The opprtunity to retain the minimal reference as a Wictionary entry is now in the past, and this needs to go, serve as a redirect to Lipstick lesbian as per the AfD three years ago, and protection to prevent this happening again. Mish (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect protection. The term is just a slightly witty extension of Lipstick lesbian, and best treated there.YobMod 09:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Let's cool it with all this sockpuppetry, fancy single-purpose user pages, and foreign politics. And yes, I am responsible for most of the article, lest there be any doubt as to the propriety of my vote here. Deepmath (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Were there any accusations of all that within this discussion? Please, keep your comments confined to why this article is notable. And you didn't answer at all why you felt this should be kept beyond contributing content for it. As far as I see it though if you did contribute the majority of the content of this article, it certainly needs to be in a much more serious tone than in it's current offensive and attack-ridden form. Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. The article in not attacking anyone. It is describing the identity of a certain non-negative stereotype of lesbian. Deepmath (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Were there any accusations of all that within this discussion? Please, keep your comments confined to why this article is notable. And you didn't answer at all why you felt this should be kept beyond contributing content for it. As far as I see it though if you did contribute the majority of the content of this article, it certainly needs to be in a much more serious tone than in it's current offensive and attack-ridden form. Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as original neologism Cynical (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I believe Ellen DeGeneres is credited with this "original neologism", if only because she happened to be the first one to say it on TV. The broad use of this term, as slang, is well referenced in the article. Perhaps mention should be made in the article of DeGeneres, despite the fact that she better fits into the soft butch category. (Notwithstanding her short hair, we must commend her for her practicality.) Slang terms often have different definitions that vary widely over time and place. We also have articles for stone femme as well as lipstick lesbian. There is a whole Category:LGBT slang on Knowledge (XXG). There is no valid reason to single out chapstick lesbian for butchery and deletion. Deepmath (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Not only is this remarkably unsourced, it is just... bad encyclopaedic content. How to recognise a Chapstick lesbian? "I'm a big girl. I can work on my car if I want to or need to without losing my femininity. I just have to put my hair up first. And yes, I know how to bake bread, too."? I'm not overly familiar with all the LGBT lingo, but this article is beyond hope and has nothing that would be merged into Lipstick lesbian. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I do not believe this resort to be notable. Does not pass a notability check. camr 01:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @164 · 02:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Declined a speedy because I see a good faith attempt to show importance here. However, I'm not finding notability. The two references given are short pieces (just a few paragraphs) about the restaurant, with nothing particular about Reginald James. Search for "Reginald James" + "Sweet Mango" turns up only 11 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notabilty. Search without "Sweet Mango" turns up too many false positives to find this person. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Delete The subject does not appear notable at the present time. I expect that the future may hold notability. Stormbay (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was keep. Editorial actions such as moves can be discussed elsewhere. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article:
See below.--Edward130603 (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
All that I can find is trivial mentions. I read a sentence about it that said that the film won an award, but it didn't say what award. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Reads like a promotional CV. SilkTork * 12:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk 05:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
STRONG DELETE This article should be deleted because the person does not meet the notability standards of wikipedia nor is there any sourcing. The author fails to identify who published the books, how many were printed, and if the sales were national. In addition the author fails to say whether these books have been relied on or subsequently referred to by other publications to give the books notability. This article lacks any sourcing or any verifiable accounts that the books were even published. Anyone can write a book and pay to have it published and even produce a DVD in this day and age. But without any sourcing or elaboration as to what makes this person notable or if they added anything to the field of fianace with his/her book that other financiers/scholars have not already made, makes me highly doubt the notability of this person. Unless the author wants to clean it up and add some more biographical information this article should be deleted. Notable people should easily be able to have a full biography not a stub listing books they supposedly published.Quidproquo1980 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete Apparently already exists at another appropriate Wiki, not a useful search term for a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ankle Slicer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fictional creatures not even mentioned in the article of the sole film in which they appear. This DVD review states that it "might consider 90 seconds on the barely-seen ankle slicers, for instance, a bit much." Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No real world notability. Abductive (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Notable as being the only thing made for the film, that wasn't in the book, and also because they sell toys of it. Dream Focus 21:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: So we're talking creatures unnamed in the movie that had a few seconds of screen time? For my part, I don't find "only thing made for the film that wasn't in the book" anywhere in the list of notability criteria, and the toy tie-in merits a sentence, at best, in the movie article. Quite aside from that, this copy is largely stolen from the Chronicles of Narnia wiki , which predates this article by a few months. Ravenswing 06:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable minor characters that weren't named in the film. Joe Chill (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Not notable group. Site does not work.--MathFacts (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was no consensus. Merging can be dealt with elsewhere \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is highly inaccurate. It should be deleted until revised. Edmundhall (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Keep I like your sense of humor "It should be deleted until revised." You can't fix it once it's deleted Antonio López 01:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
No intellectual theft or copyright violation has occurred as I had permission from the patent holder to write this article. However, after having read this article, the patent holder is not satisfied with it, and would prefer that at the very minimum the Squat & Anti-squat and Consistent Anti-Squat & Virtual Pivot Points paragraphs be removed. On top of that, other details need to be corrected. If I am responsible for the text I wrote, why am I not allowed to remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundhall (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
quote: "The inventor's opinion as to whether Knowledge (XXG) should carry an article on his invention is not decisive: that decision belongs to the Knowledge (XXG) community." If the inventor does not give permission for an article to be produced about his invention and patent, then his opinion "IS DECISIVE", If I am not corrected. Anyhow, disregarding petty arguments, I will edit the article as I see necessary to remove incorrect information. hopefully this article is not reverted to its original state, yet again. As a side note, it is absolutely preposterous that you wikipedia moderators feel that you have more authority over this article than the inventor/patent holder. Surely this is a corruption of your policies if you believe the owner of the intellectual property has less authority over his invention than you, the wikipedia moderators. I can produce evidence of my statements about the inventor's statements, if necessary. You moderators are a joke. I don't care what your wikipedia policies state, the logic surrounding my argument is sound and clear, you are only ignoring my opinions with your authority to prolong the life of an completely inaccurate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundhall (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
delete as nn website ZagZagg (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete as nn website ZagZagg (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
no indication of why this character needs a separate article to what is already in the main article. noq (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Keep This is a character that has appered a lot in the sitcom and those have a good story.Pedro thy master (talk • contribs) 21:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Merge back to Two and a Half Men. not a lead in the series. not notable on her own. already enough information in the original article.--camr 01:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
|