Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Open letter regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's potential disclosure of editors' personal information.
- Should all administrators seeking resysop have made an administrative act within the previous five years?
- Extended-confirmed pending changes and preemptive protection in contentious topics
- Are portals encyclopedic, and are they appropriate redirect targets?
- Should recall petitions be limited to signatures only?
- Should the length of recall petitions be shortened?
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
The result was delete. JForget 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy was declined, but I still fail to see any claim to notability. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Some suggestions for merging but no consensus for a target. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been in this poorly sourced state for years, and I can't see it getting better. Currently it has one unreliable reference. I have looked for sources, and all I can find is crappy diet websites and fluff pieces in lifestyle magazines. It had been redirected to celery, but was just reverted, so I think it's time to decide properly if this is worth keeping. Fences&Windows 23:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already outlined on Breaking Bad, not notable enough to have separate article detailing episodes. Also very poorly written ScythreTalkContribs 22:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy deleted (A7) by Tiptoety. →javért chat 00:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical, have a look at the page to see the reason. Blatant vandalism. ScythreTalkContribs 22:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Consensus is that, with no coverage in reliable secondary sources, this article cannot be salvaged from its current state as a pure plot summary. I will happily userfy this on request if someone wishes to merge some of this plot summary to an appropriate place or places. ~ mazca talk 11:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, this article is causing three problems:
At best, the phrase "Batman: Reborn" relates to:
Ideally:
I agree but there is one problem Long Shadows takes place after the epilogue and before the Batman and Robin saga Batman: Reborn, so if we do keep the article I suggest we only keep these three storys and merge them into one plot artcle. On either the DC Wiki or Batman Wiki it says in the plot something like as Batman stops Penguin and Two-Face the Circus of Crime emerges we could do something like that but we don't have a good source.--Schmeater (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks assertion of notability by secondary sources. Basically one big plot synopsis, and Wikipedia's not meant to be an excuse for you to not buy your comics. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see earlier Schmeater revealed that Batman: Reborn was just a banner and the story only ran through Batman and Robin, all that you are seeing about all those series being in Batman: Reborn is fan hype, which J Greb just stated is assumptions. So we have two points left: 1)Which part's should stay. 2)Why was this article made.--Stinkysoxmon (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Now the part that should stay is already in Batman and Robin, this article was made because of all the fanhype going on. So if we combine those two we get this article was made because of FanHype and the only proper part is Batman and Robin's part. So we are already covering Batman: Reborn in Batman and Robin so why keep it in here.--Schmeater (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what to say about this article except that it's an utterly explicit violation of WP:NOTHOW that doesn't even seem to follow the sole source cited. That there are those, including the article's author, who disagree with the policy can be seen by reading Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Say yes to how-to guides; but it's policy nonetheless. Deor (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what if I were to spend some time transforming the article into a more objective, more encyclopedic, and less how-to-ish entry? Would that work? Aelindor (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no claim of notability for this photographer. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy delete a7, 14 year old soccer player, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical, non-notable footballer ScythreTalkContribs 21:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the deletion tag because I believe the artist is non notable and that the article has a strong ring of promotion. V. Joe (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I declined to speedy this article because it contains a weak claim of notability - that he wrote a charted song. It seems that he was one of four writers on the song. Might squeak by WP:COMPOSER, but I really don't think so. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Irish language. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is determined not to be listcruft, it would probably be better to merge the information within into Irish language. Tckma (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable
|
The result was redirect to 07 zgłoś się. The content remains available under the redirect for those who would like to merge. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a character that doesn't establish any kind of notability. Even if sources do exist, they would better serve the article on the television show. TTN (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article about a Norwegian professor in medicine. Frim what I can find this person fails WP:PROF. In my search I have not bin able too find reliable secondary sources. Also coi problems. Rettetast (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Top GS cites are 402, 131,80,40... h index = 11. There seem to be plenty of secondary sources. Publication list needs to be removed from article.
|
The result was Speedy Deleted by Orangemike by G11. Cheers, I'mperator 21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book vanity published by non-notable author. Article created by book's author. Entry is badly written (misspellings, grammar and punctuation and capitalization errors). Entry provides no significant or notable info, would need significant re-write to be considered encyclopedic. Sean Martin (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable assistant camera man WuhWuzDat 19:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thomas James Williams is one of the biggest cinematographers in the northwest currently working, I'm collecting the articles now Modmaciek (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. (X! · talk) · @923 · 21:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Entry is for non-notable book vanity published by non-notable author. Entry is uninformative and badly written, provides no significant or useful info. Sean Martin (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Wizardman 13:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable; an actor with only one role. The one film he's in appears to be notable, but one role does not confer notability, particularly when a search for press coverage on Ed Spear turns up nothing but Facebook, imdb, Blogger, etc. Tagged for notability, but tag removed by IP. Hairhorn (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit)#Prototype versions. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a list of levels, which is pure game guide material. The actual content is already covered in Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (16-bit)#Prototype versions, so there is no need for this to exist. TTN (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fan forum. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Ronald Huth is NOT a professional footballer yet, fails WP:athlete. He does not plays any professional games Matthew_hk tc 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. per G12, copyright violation from http://www.alionthego.com/blogs/7_Questions/page/2 JForget 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
autobio vanity spam WuhWuzDat 19:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Sovereign Citizen Movement. JForget 21:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article, as written, is an utter work of fiction. The "founding fathers" never used this term, and there is absolutely no evidence that such an interpretation was intended other than the type of original research and synthesis embodied in this article. bd2412 T 18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is a brief quote from "A View of the Constitution of the United States" by Rawle:
To use the words "Sovereign" and "citizen" contiguously is NOT synthesis! We could just as well use "Sovereign People" for the article title, but that wouldn't be synthesis, either! Trasel (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
autobio puff/vanity article, only references are to IMDB, or to the subjects own websites WuhWuzDat 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prod was contested in December 2008. Encyclopedias are not for television schedules. Joe Chill (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep. - No progress is no grounds for deletion (non-admin closure) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Article doesn't satisfy WP:ENT. No references. No meaningful wikilinks. No meaningful external links. Previously nominated in 2006. No significant progress in 3.5 years. Bazj (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
|
The result was redirect to Five Finger Death Punch. JForget 21:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nn musician. TheWeakWilled 18:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film; article placed by the filmmaker. I42 (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn and no delete !votes. (NAC) -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 14:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow - which statistics are for 2006? Eldumpo (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. The debate has now moved to a more appropriate place, RFC. In order to keep the debate centralized, I am closing this AfD as No consensus and kindly ask everyone interested to participate at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30#Per station television schedules. Thank you. Tone 12:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AfD not just for List of United States network television schedules but also for all the schedules under it. There are about 90 of them, so apologies for not listing them all. This is a classic case of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is no use for the schedule of every US TV network since 1946, and the one vaguely valid argument (a way of navigating) falls flat on its face. Who goes "I want to see a list of 1950s television programs. I know! I'll look for a list of 1950s television programs on between 3 and 3:30pm on a certain US network in 1952"? This is of no use as an encyclopaedic article, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of encyclopaedic information. Ironholds (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second one, covering 1985-2007, I have yet to purchase, but hope to soon. I would like these articles to be kept so that they can be modified to cover the mid-season changes without becoming unwieldy. These lists are also not indiscriminate. They do not take into account station variations (I happen to live in a market where the former NBC affiliate pre-empted shows arbitrarily, yet I didn't bother to say so because it is irrelevant to the national schedules), individual airings and pre-emptions (which belong under the articles about the shows themselves). And they only take account of the national broadcast networks (including defunct ones) that air original programming (ABC, CBS, NBC, DuMont, Fox, UPN, the WB, and the CW). No cable, no local stations, not even PBS (and those articles since its formation explain why PBS is excluded: individual stations air their shows whenever they want). They do not measure week by week changes, but changes over the whole season. I and other users have done all that we can to deal with persistent vandalism in the daytime schedules, and I will continue to be vigilant about improving the articles to the best of my knowledge. For those reasons I think the article and the schedules should be kept. Attmay (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable person - fails WP:NOT#NEWS. I appreciate that the photograph won an award, fine - so have an article on the photograph. He as an individual is unimportant. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Tone 13:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable as sources are press releases or not third party. Ash (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. It appears that the article needs a rewrite; also, some of the delete arguments are WP:PERNOM or WP:JNN. Moreover, after the rewrite, G11 no longer applies. Therefore, despite the numbers, I see a consensus to keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Product line or company with no demonstrated notability beyond its own press release. Investor-targeted promotional language suggests WP:SPAM, perhaps WP:PUMPANDDUMP. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Consensus indicates that the movie is not notable enough for inclusion. I note that Blurpeace's original vote was a "strong delete", but was subsequently edited by Drramsey. Arguments for keeping the article are weak, and include WP:ILIKEIT. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
This is a contentious article. It has been in AFD at least three times under this name, and several other times under "creative misspellings". In the past, the concerns were over notability, as the movie had not even been released. This current incarnation shows the same concerns: there are no verifiable references from reliable sources. The Ed, Edd n Eddy article already contains a synopsis of this movie, and as WP:NOT, this current article is basically a painfully detailed plot summary. I'd prefer this to be redir'ed to Ed, Edd n Eddy, but given the edit wars, inanity, etc, over this article, I'm going to bring it AFD so that I wider, and generally uninvolved population, can help to build some sort of consensus. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Consensus seems to suggest that this article is not suitable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be deleted article per Wikipedia:Notability and also per the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure which state "The names of non-notable (i.e., non-bluelinked) ensemble and chorus members, understudies and non-notable production team members (other than directors and choreographers) should be deleted. Only the actors playing principal (significant speaking and singing) roles should be mentioned." I have added the original cast lists for the three major productions at Legally Blonde (musical) and there have been no notable replacements (blue linked) in any of these casts (the london production is yet to open) Mark E (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lacks the importance or significance of the subject. It was a commercial failure and is now a lost film. Smilemeans (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established per WP:MUSICBIO. Maint tags removed without issues being resolved. Reliable, third-party, sources searched for before nom. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 22:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I declined a speedy request on this article, but it does not seem as if the subject meets WP:FOOTY or general notability guidelines. Skomorokh 15:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:OR. Note especially "Smart Montage was a phrase coined by Brigid Maher... in August 2009", and the article creator was Bamaher. I42 (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Hairhorn who continues to edit out the references to the links. Spatial montage and mash ups are used to create intellectual statements similar to Eisenstein's intellectual montage. This is evident in Tracey Fragments as well as the other examples that get deleted. This term has already gone into use in academic circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.252.6 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC) — 68.33.252.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prod was contested in July 2008. I found zero sources for this. This is a non-notable bootleg album. Joe Chill (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 21:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although some of the people in their catalogue may or may not be notable, I could find no sources that satisfied WP:ORG. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to The Muppet Show#Recurring skits. The decision to redirect is an editorial one and subject to reversion. Consider this a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced stub and duplication of simple paragraph already on The Muppet Show#Recurring skits section. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Discussion regarding editorial actions should continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written but entirely unencyclopedic page, complete with weasel words ("some gamers"), lack of references (the only one is an EVE Online article which establishes that the term does exist, but not much else), inappropriate editorializing and value judgements, and inherently unsourcable statements. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, particularly not Urban Dictionary, and there simply isn't anything encyclopedic to be said about the subject. Ashenai (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
whilst the 2 countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations. the first 70 of this seems almost entirely multilateral [34]. the only commonality is that they both seem to have had economic problems. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost entirely a photo gallery, no sources, no chance of being sourced. It's just an undefined district. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 12:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on the suffix "-scope", and was titled -scope until recently. The article claims to be about "viewing instruments" (a pretty loosely defined term), but really the only thing the list entries have in common is the suffix -scope (gyroscope and horoscope are certainly not "viewing instruments", for instance). This material is already covered in Wiktionary. There is precedent for deleting suffix articles that basically consist of dictionary definitions - see, for example, here and here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. The subject meets WP:ATHLETE. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough. Eleassar my talk 10:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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. There was no substantial support of redirecting this anywhere, although any editor is welcome to create such a redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is very non-NPOV, appears to be a Republican attack against President Obama, shows no sources, and is highly biased. Appears to be a non-notable idiom that entered into usage by one politician less than a week ago. Frmatt (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE:I moved the above comment by Brian278 from Wikipedia Talk:Articles for Deletion/Deather to this space so it could be properly included in the discussion. Frmatt (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Tone 13:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable member of nobility, no sourcing to support any individual claim to notability. All statements about this person's individual activities (merely claiming that he "supports" certain political organisations, not even that he has a leading role in them) are in fact unsourced. The only claim to notability is that this person is apparently the nephew of someone who nominally served as the puppet "prince" of a fascist puppet-statelet invented by the Italian occupiers during the WWII occupation of the Balkans, the Voivodship of Macedonia, during one month in 1943. The author's argument on the talk page, essentially claiming that this nominal title conveys on him an automatic degree of notability comparable to that of authentic European (ex-)royalty, strikes me as absurd. (Come to that, we don't even know whether the subject himself actually claims that nominal title for himself; this too is sourced only to non-reliable websites.) The only other sources cited in the article are the private webpage of the subject's own family, and a few pages that deal with just that puppet statelet (but not the present subject, who was born after it had ceased to exist). No independent coverage whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was withdrawn by nominator. although I still think the film fails notability, in light of the recent work done on the article, I'm withdrawing the nomination.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Film does not appear to pass WP:NOTFILM. It was a small indie film that was never in wide release. The article makes a claim that it won a minor award at the Berlin Film Festival based on an IMDB.com link. However, the film festivals website does not list the award or film winning an award. [49] But an article I found does mention the an award, but fails to specify which one. [50] I suspect it is a minor award, but it is certainly not one of the festivals notable ones that they keep in their archives. A total of 24 gnews hits, althought some aren't actually about the movie.[51] I found a few reviews, but none appear to satisfy the "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" part of WP:NOTFILM. Overall, it appears to be a minor film that made a stab at being notable, but came up short. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I understand that the film had a very limited release, but I feel like it is significant in part because it is an early work by a director who has made other films with a much wider release (2006's "The Hawk Is Dying"). Also this film has been aired many times on the Independent Film Channel [1] Another reference to the award is mentioned here (at the bottom of the page) Also (from a biography of the film's editor)[53] and from the director's website...[54] "Goldberger’s feature film directing debut, “Trans”, listed in the BEST OF 1999 and 2000 by film critics, has screened at the 1998 Toronto International Film Festival, 1999 Sundance Film Festival, 1999 Berlin International Film Festival (READERS’ JURY PRIZE for BEST FILM), 1999 New Directors/New Films series at New York City’s Museum of Modern Art, as well as various other international festivals." Also here is a press release for the film "The Hawk is Dying" which mentions the Award.
Other than the sources I've listed above, is there any other source rather than the Berlin Film Festival's site that will be acceptable? One [56] is from Irish Film and Television News and another is from www.pbs.com [57]. Other than the actual Festival's site, I think these two at least are worth of being a source. Timothyapetty (talk)timothyapettyTimothyapetty (talk) Citation for award has been changed to the Irish Film and Television News link rather than the IMDB. Timothyapetty (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say this respectfully, but if the criteria for notoriety is that strict, then 80% of the independent film articles on WP need to be deleted. Timothyapetty (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the fact of whether or not the review is favorable has any bearing on those reviews being used to demonstrate notability. Things can be notable for being bad just as easily as they can for being good. And with the tens of thousands of independent films made each year, I believe that any award at a major international film festival is noteworthy. Timothyapetty (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Promotional page for audio files. Wikidas© 07:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this article suggests this person is in the least bit notable. There are no reliable sources to confirm any of it or establish any kind of notability. I42 (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. Tone 09:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No context for this, so it's hard to figure out much about where this character appears, but He appeared as one of characters in the self unpublished comic notebook isn't promising. I can't find anything meaningful in a Google search for "Primitibo Mendoza", "Lorenzo Eduardo T. Halili" or "Geoffrey 'Borgy' Borgonia". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Skomorokh 16:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject clearly does not merit inclusion under WP:ATHLETE. My review of the above-captioned {{find sources}} does not give rise to the conclusion that he meets the GNG (happy for someone to point to specific references (not to search results) that indicate otherwise. Bongomatic 06:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg album. Joe Chill (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg album. Joe Chill (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Skomorokh 16:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
I can't find any significant coverage for this bootleg album. Joe Chill (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this bootleg album. Joe Chill (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was likley created as part of a pay-for-article business. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Stokeling for details on that...) Asside from that there are no significant reliable secondary sources and thus the subject of the article is not a notable business. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. As consensus rather strongly suggests, AfD is not to be used as a substitute for cleanup. Indeed, most of the nominator's concerns, while entirely valid, can be addressed through standard editing. Deletion should generally be used as a last resort. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
The AfD list to your right is wrong. Due to an intervening name change, it's difficult to get the template to link to the previous AfDs. Correct links follow: On reviewing the previous two rounds of voting the consensus isn't to keep or delete so much as it is to reference the article. And this has not been done over the years that this article has been undergoing continuous rounds of scrutiny. As of today, there are a piddling three references for the entire article, and two of these references are the end credits of "Journey's End" — hardly a source independent of the subject. "Fame" can't be referenced[edit]I suspect the reason that it's not been referenced is that it cannot be referenced. Just look at the way the list is set up. The meat of the list is the "fame" column. How can you reference "fame"? When I think of, say, Tom Hanks, I know, anecdotally, that he's famous. But what's he famous for? That rather depends on who's answering. For some people his fame derives from Bosom Buddies, for others it's Saving Private Ryan, for still others it's Apollo 13. And that's a genuinely well-known actor. Trying to assign a few titles to an actor's career is, of necessity, a subjective thing, dependent entirely upon the writer's memory. And let's face it, this list really just tries too damn hard. I mean, seriously: George Coulouris is hardly famous — today — for Citizen Kane, nor can his "prominence" as a stage actor in the middle of the 20th century be today reliably referenced or assessed. Hell, he wasn't even "famous" for Kane when he appeared, some 23 years after the fact, in The Keys of Marinus. Not one person out of a hundred knew who he was then, and the figure's probably less now. So that's one problem: "fame" is a matter of subjectivity. Or, to put it in Wiki terms: this is an article which can never be reliably sourced. The dreadful title[edit]But another is the title. We're led to believe, by the title, that we'll be given a list of appearances in Doctor Who. But the article goes on to give us people from even the darkest corners of the Whoniverse. It can't make up its mind as to what its focus is, but the fact that it's been trying for years leads me to believe it never will. Moreover, there are real problems with the words "celebrity" and "notable". This directly offends WP:LISTNAME, which says, quite clearly that lists should be about one thing (a list of Xs, not a list of Xs and Ys). WP:LISTNAME also specifically warns against the words "famous", "noted', or "prominent". In other words, we've got a list here which basically offends every part of the WP:LISTNAME guideline. That should be a pretty red flag that our list isn't worth pursuing. The topic[edit]Note that I'm not saying that we should try to find a better name. I'm saying it's not worth doing. But so does WP:SALAT and WP:NOT. WP:SALAT says that you could create a "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", but that you should be prepared to defend why such a list "contributed to the state of human knowledge". It strikes me "list of celebrity and notable appearances on Doctor Who" isn't much different. In the whole of the arguments in the previous two AfDs, I saw nothing which really justified how this list gives us anything useful. The vast majority of the KEEP votes were either marked weak keep or possessed of a lot of other qualifying language. Most of the people arguing for "keep" were really saying, "Keep, if you can reference it or edit it heavily". No one has really said why we need this list. Indeed, WP:NOTDIRECTORY speaks directly against this list. To quote:
I dunno about you, but that sounds exactly like what our list is trying to be: People who are from a cultural group (celebrity) employed by Doctor Who (and TW, and SJA, and BF) producers. I suppose there are a ton of other objections, but that's enough for now, surely. Vote to delete this article which fails multiple Wikipedia guidelines. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 04:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Discussion[edit]
|
The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G11 because the first book in the series is currently unwritten. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable series of short stories lacking any GHITS and GNEWS. Author also lacking both GHITS and GNEWS. Prod'ed article, but author removed tag. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. No defense of the article after over 2 weeks. The orig. ed. was notified, and is active at WP, but hasn't defended. Time to finish. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable consultant specialist, though the article doesn't meet WP:BIO and WP:N. It doesn't meet the guidelines. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 04:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is no encyclopedic value in this entry. --Rcalvert (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] There's no reason for an article on this guy - not notable --90.203.55.106 (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Was a close call though. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HAMMERTIME Cannibaloki 02:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect. Skomorokh 16:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This individual seems to be of marginal notability, and the article written is intrinsically negative based off very few sources, of which a number are simply passing mentions. I don't feel this biography should be included in Wikipedia. Further, for whatever it's worth, the subject also requests deletion (OTRS #2009081210024288). Regards, Daniel (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to University of Houston. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG. While it does have reliable, third-party sources, these give passing mentions at best. Ironholds (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. The deletion votes were stronger than the keeps. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
classic WP:NOT, particularly "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. The deletion votes were stronger than the keeps. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
classic WP:NOT, particularly "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. The deletion votes were stronger than the keeps. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
classic WP:NOT, particularly "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. The deletion votes were stronger than the keeps. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
classic WP:NOT, particularly "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Ironholds (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not establish notability. Specifically, the subject does not appear to satisfy any of the 9 criteria for academics laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and there is no indication of how she would be notable otherwise. This article was prod'ed a long time ago, with the prod removed, by an editor asserting that the fact she authored 6 books is enough of a claim to notability. I disagree. Another editor has recently questioned her notability, so AfD seems like the next logical step. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Content has been Merged. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Delete Nothing confirmed from official sources. Its just another one of the hundreds of unreleased songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclarenaustralia (talk • contribs) 08:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
The previous AfD in March closed as a weak no-consensus, which probably could have been relisted again. Nevertheless, there's still no evidence of notability-ghits announcing performances have never been enough to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:ORG and I don't see that they're any different in this case. StarM 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to establish WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Nonsensical neologism, near-vandalism --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a non-notable neologism. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. The links provided don't appear to meet WP:RS and GNews doesn't offer up anything. The article lists no notable credits and none of the photogs she's apparently worked for have articles of their own. Mbinebri talk ← 23:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable as no independent sources demonstrate notability. The article has been tagged as an advert for over 12 months with no sign of improvement. Ash (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Jack Bergstrand. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable as defined by WP:BK and any minor information can be merged or is already present at Jack Bergstrand, the sole author of this book. Ash (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete founding by notable tv host. but it is launched at July 2009 and 3 of 4 reference source links from this website. Localteche (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how this component of the larger PCBoard topic is notable. It appears to examine the market for addons ot an old internet program and is currently unsourced. MBisanz talk 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to David Ogilvy, 12th Earl of Airlie. There was consensus that the subject lacked individual notability, and a general agreement that there should be a redirect. Truthfully, I'm not certain that there was consensus to redirect to the target I've chosen, and as always editors should feel free to change the redirect target as they would for any other editor. I have personal sympathy for DGG's view here, but it doesn't have support in this debate. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indications of own WP:Notability. No WP:Reliable sources (all what I've found was merely the mention of her name, mostly in connection with her family). No indications that this article could ever be more than pure genealogy. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable promotional page. The only sources included are self published blogs or forums. The official site quoted is a Facebook page. Not to be confused with Souljazz Orchestra. Ash (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources to not mention any such effect. No notability is suggested here. -- Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Meghwal. The consensus was to merge and redirect, but since the merge has been done, I'm simply redirecting. The edit history remains intact should it be needed. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be no credible sources for this article. I asked about this topic at the Noticeboard for India-related topics but the only response there indicated that they couldn't find sources either. Sophitessa (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- ^ http://www.ifc.com/movies/177590/Trans
- ^ Delete: Per Niteshift36 and Drawn Some. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- ^ http://www.villagevoice.com/2000-01-11/long-island-voice/straight-out-of-the-everglades/
- ^ http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9D06EFDE1338F933A25757C0A96F958260
Hidden category: