Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- An open letter regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's potential disclosure of editors' personal information is collecting signatures.
- Should it be a requirement for all administrators seeking resysop to have completed their last administrative action 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?
- Nominations for the Arbitration Committee elections
- Should the length of a recall petition be shortened?
- Striking others' comments from archives
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
The result was redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election#James Ronson (Lanark—Carleton). JForget 00:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Failed political candidate. Not otherwise notable and does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Recommend redirect to New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. Suttungr (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The creator contested the prod. I can't find any sources that show that this album is notable. There is info mixed in the searches about Shena's previous album of the same name. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Tan | 39 16:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Maybe, just maybe, they might squeak by for being just notable enough per WP:COMPOSER, but it's hard to tell. Determining whether the sources that come up on on a news search are reliable/third-party is difficult for me at least (I don't understand Swedish). The only English-language sites seem to promote their appearance at a seminar for music production software. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. 13 days is enough DGG (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of reliable source coverage provide or found; news searches for "Jackson Fall"+LivingDigitally & "Jackson Fall"+TeenCasts.tv both came up empty ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable WP:NF Ronweezlee (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. getting snowballed here JForget 00:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable football player, fails WP:ATHLETE and lacking poor notability. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. After sourcing and reformatting by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) all later participants in the discussion concur that the problems raised by the nominator have been rectified and notability sufficiently demonstrated. ~ mazca talk 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Company doesn't meet notability requirements, unless it should not consider as verifiability. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Placing second in the Chicago Rock Cafe's Rock Idol contest seems insufficient to confer notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 1 (nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions registered). No prejudice against renomination when the AGT situation becomes clearer. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails notability requirements for musicians. No albums released, no affiliation with a major label or indie. Info can't be verified. Appears that's she's mainly known as a child prodigy who sings the national anthem a lot, but that's not enough. This article has had lots of issues since its creation in November but has not improved. Delete it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A one-off event that was cancelled. Doesn't pass WP:notability, patent cruft Trident13 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod which was removed without improvement to the article. Lacks 3rd party sources. Not clear how this person meets WP:BIO or WP:ENTERTAINER RadioFan (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The few sources for the article (all nearly three years old) apparently describe an early version of the game Wipeout HD, which was released for the PlayStation 3 in 2008. There are no references indicating that "Wipeout PS3" is a separate product from Wipeout HD. As there is already an article for Wipeout HD, I'm nominating Wipeout PS3 for deletion. T. H. McAllister (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it reminds me of the article on Gran Turismo Mobile for psp, the game was announced in 2004 as a launch title for psp and as been in development hell ever since. it has barely been given a slated release date and if that article can last that long without being nominated for deletion, i believe this one should be as well. Str8cash (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this useless, redundant, confusing, and misleading article. --Slac (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reliable sources indicate this passes any general or specialty notability guideline. Otto4711 (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this product doesn't appear to be notable and the page seems meant to cover a single study. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Slum Village. Whether there is content worth merging is an editorial decision. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE fails WP:MUSIC and is a non-notable musician/person (or was, as the case may be). JBsupreme (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, small non-notable mall, no significant media or any other coverage. I see nothing notable about this mall Kyle1278 21:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this video release has any independent notability. PROD removed under some "well there might be" rationale. Otto4711 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator nom for deletion: I first created this article many months ago by merging Fire Nation, Air Nomads, Earth Kingdom, Water Tribe, and Bending in Avatar: The Last Airbender. This was kind of in my early days of article editing; I didn't really understand the notability criteria. While the article of Avatar: The Last Airbender is quite notable, because there are many reliable sources that report in detail on it, the same cannot be said for this article, which is entirely in universe by nature. It does not have any reliable sources that are not mentioned in either the main article or the character list, and so the article simply does not meet the general notability criteria. NW (Talk) 16:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Alexf(talk) 02:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Irbisgreif (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. per WP:N JForget 22:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable local basketball league, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Zero google news hits RadioFan (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
little more than a definition. Relies upon a single source. Recommendation to copy to wiktionary contested. RadioFan (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Wong Kiew Kit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article's only sources are online self-references (a single URL belonging to the site of the organization) and the article is filled with nonsense. The article rambles on incoherently about kung fu and Zen, without the relevance being very clear and with some obviously incorrect facts. One major inaccuracy includes the claim that Bodhidharma invented kung fu. Wikipedia's article on Kung fu notes that this is false. But this article claims that he created "Cosmos Chi Kung" and "Sinew Metamorphosis". The article also says, "Chi Kung practiced at the mind level cures any disease, including diseases considered by some as incurable, such as cancer, diabetes, ulcers and cardiovascular disorders." ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. While the article needs cleanup, the subject is notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like blatant advertising to me - and I can't see an obvious way to salvage it. However, I'm sparing it from {{db-spam}} and bringing it over for discussion, as it looks like there is potentially a notable topic buried here - possibly more so for the architecture of the building than for the company itself. I'm not sure how anything longer than a one-paragraph stub could be extracted from the current article, though, and can't see an obvious way to expand on it. – iridescent 19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Also nominating:
|
The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Google, etc. reveal nothing substantive. (Though you should be careful to not confuse this person with "Jürgen Schröder." --MZMcBride (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article had promise several years back, but the topic -a proposed supertall skyscraper in Boston, Massachusetts- does not appear to even be proposed at the moment. The last news sources are more than a year old. Their are no plans to even begin preparing a building site, and the current building on the proposed site is a city parking garage which is still open, without plans to close or demolish it. The proposal (as well as this article) date back to a period when financing was still readily available for projects like this, and the likelihood this building would be fully developed was high and justified the article. With the economic crash, this plan is effectively shelved indefinitely, and no longer warrants an article. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Hiberniantears (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Merging can be dealt with elsewhere. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 122.53.98.48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 122.53.98.48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 122.53.98.48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
}
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested CSD. Article covers a student. Asserted basis for notability includes (1) an incident with an archbishop. Verified, but his role is not substantial; (2) forming the "Vietnam Academic Network". No WP:RS found; refs given are only to primary sources (press releases, &c.). (3) receiving an allegedly prestigious fellowship and studying under a well-known professor. Hardly basis for notability. GNews returned a few hits, most arising from the archbishop incident. Tim Song (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--77.98.27.57 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)--77.98.27.57 (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] Article should be removed from list of academic to be deleted discussions as the subject is not claiming academic notability--BirminghamAV (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] * Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
If that is the case then a section should be merged onto th archbishops page - as all the independent news coverage is verified and from reliable main-stream sources. I would still contest that the awards are not notable. There is one 'local'award, the rest are national and international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.27.57 (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Archbishop incident - notable enough to make mainstream media headlines. Nobdoy has nominated him for historical notability. Again there seem to be some contemptous views on here about what a young person can can't can be recognised for. --BirminghamAV (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you will now stop harassing this article and its subject whom you have no relation to. If you can justify why this article should be deleted then sensibly say so, if not, stop wasting peoples time with patheticness--BirminghamAV (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that he has a subjective interest against the subject re the archbishop incident. He tried to establish a St Ann's page but this was declined. I sujest if people cannot remain neutral and hold their religious views to one side then they should not be commenting. Wiki's policy is that some material may offend others (e.g. sexual) but this is no justification for its removal--BirminghamAV (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 'closing admin'??????? - you're so dead set against this article that you've already decided that it should be deleted. Well let me tell you this, the article meets numerous criteria. It has not claimed academic notability but basic notability. The very fact that this extensive discussion has gone on has shown how contenious the subject is. --77.98.27.57 (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD process was initiated by an individual who has subjective interests against the subject. He has failed to disasociate himself. The fact of the matter is the subject is a student - correct, but also a celebrity, and also a person involved in constsitently in the media headline and also an exceptional track record. If this article ends in a delete then there are a zillion (yes - zillion) other non-notable articles that need to be taken off the site. At the end of the day, if people want to be bitter that is their problem, wiki editors should be proactively doing constructive engagements with the site. --BirminghamAV (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Consensus leans towards deletion, but various solutions have been suggested that would rectify the problems raised here without wholesale deletion of the article - possibly involving cutting it down and merging info elsewhere. There is sufficient argument in favour of this path that I do not think a consensus to delete has yet been established. I would recommend a renomination of this article in the intermediate future if the unmaintainability and navigability problems remain unsolved. ~ mazca talk 13:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, this single list is too unmaintanable, and has been replaced by lists by state. It has about 2000 railroads listed. I just finished redoing the pages listed on Template:US railroad lists for all 50 states and D.C., listing all defunct railroads I could find; the total number is over 10,000 railroads. In addition, about half of the companies on list of defunct United States railroads didn't actually build or operate anything; they were just chartered and left to die, and should not be listed. (I checked each one that was on that list but not on one of the state lists, and got under 20 that needed to be added to the state lists.) This has also been discussed a bit at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2008, 4#List of defunct United States railroads. In other words, the state lists are much easier to maintain and have better information. NE2 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear what, exactly, this is a list of. I also suspect that, if this is suitable for an article, it should be on another language's Wikipedia. Trivialist (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. SNOW closure. Enigmamsg 05:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a gear on the game Roblox], but it has bad grammar, and it's short. This article wouldn't be good to merge into the Roblox article, because it's 1 of thousands of items. Jeremjay24 (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. I am not relisting because Blackbirdz's recommendation has stayed for 5 days without a change from the original "keep" !voters, so a relist is unlikely to help. There will be no prejudice against merging to the author's article, provided that there is sufficient consensus to do so at the article's talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article from material that had been inserted in an article about a completely different topic, Salvation, Texas. However, this is a book by an author who lacks a WP article herself, and one blog review and a couple of user-submitted reviews do not appear to meet the requirements of WP:BK. The material should be deleted as nonnotable. Deor (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Top and bottom. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This term, even if not totally a neologism, is still just not notable enough to sustain a full encyclopedia article. It is a dictionary entry at best. Powers T 14:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
An article on this topic was deleted via AfD about 2½ months ago, and the only apparent change in the situation is that the product has since garnered a few sentences of mention in a BBC News piece (linked in the "External links" section of the article). I doubt that this puts the product, which according to the BBC is available only at 20 local pubs, over the notability hump and suggest that the article be deleted again, with a copy being provided in the creator's user space. When he has written an article that clearly establishes the product's notability, he can seek a consensus for recreation at DRV per the usual procedure. (And let's try to avoid here the festival of sockpuppetry that the previous AfD became.) Deor (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Words of Great Wisdom from our Leader. "Let me make my point more clear: arguments about what we ought to [do] if someone really starts to abuse wikipedia with thousands and thousands of trivial articles do not prove that we ought to delete any and every article that's too trivial today. Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world. Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website. Then I think people should relax and accomodate [sic] me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do. That's true *even if* we'd react differently to a ton of one-liners mass-imported saying nothing more than "Randolph School is a private school in Huntsville, Alabama, US" and "Indian Springs is a private school in Birmingham, Alabama, US" and on and on and on, ad nauseum. The argument "what if someone did this particular thing 100,000 times" is not a valid argument against letting them do it a few times." --User:Jimbo Wales(dated November 7, 2003[1]) PeterS2009 (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedily Closed, and a note that I will be mentioning this in a neutral statement at WP:AN because of concerns raised given the prior behaviour of TTN. Hiding T 21:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
This is a single AfD for just this topic. Unlike that Salvation, Texas mess of an article, this one did not gain anything relevant to the real world in the AfD. It only has a mention that it is actually in the series, and the other source doesn't even mention the topic in any way. It is still just a minor plot point that it already aptly described within a few sentences in the main article. TTN (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete, obvious hoax. Author blocked as a vandalism/hoax-only account (he'd been using an IP to promote this hoax as well). Blueboy96 15:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find any sources to support the claims in this article. Ppssible hoax. Author made some dodgy edits after my initial cleanup, which rings alarm bells. The JPStalk to me 12:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page is a guide, and therefore is a vio of WP:NOTGUIDE. Also, unreferenced. PROD declined, hasn't been improved since Kingpin13 (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. It is reasonably clear that Kiang fails WP:PROF. However, he may pass WP:BIO, which states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." The coverage is not trivial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ACADEMIC, nothing to raise him above the bar of a normal academic, yes he's written some papers. but fails WP:BIO as well due to lack of third party coverage [36]. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 22:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article on two characters from a soap opera, who both appear to have their own separate articles anyway (John Paul McQueen, Craig Dean). The article appears to be excessive plot summary (WP:NOTPLOT) and, due to the unsourced mention of internet forums in the lead, I smell fanboy-ism (WP:FANCRUFT). However, the section on reception shows some notability (WP:N) as the show won a Stonewall Award due to these characters, but that does not justify the need for this duplicate article and the rest of that section appears to be trivial (WP:TRIVIA) quotes from the cast. DJ 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Multiple editors assert that this is a pure dictionary definition and should be deleted as such. Others assert that it is not, and contains sufficient information to warrant an encyclopedia article and should be kept and expanded as a stand-alone article. Others still believe this information would be best suited merged elsewhere and should be merged. There is no solid consensus in particular here to do any of these three things. ~ mazca talk 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Contested prod. Article has no realistic hope of expansion, more suitable as a Wiktionary definition Jezhotwells (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. It is true that GNG can supersede ATHLETE, but it has not been shown that he passes GNG either. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, fails WP:ATHLETE as has made no professional appearances for any club and may not for many months, years etc The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly a redundant plot regurgitation of the novel in which the character plays a major part. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be NN comedian, performed a couple of shows, no indication still working or any sort of media hits, nothing much in google SimonLyall (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not receive significant coverage. Promotional. Not notable Cptnono (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No external sources or discernible value. The concept is only used within one school identified by the article, due to this, it seems heavily biased. If anywhere, it belongs as a sub category on the Highland Tech High article, however, with it's bias and lack of proper sourcing, it violates the Wikipedian Guidelines for articles. Xaldibik (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
neither country has a resident embassy, and a state visit or a meeting of deputy leaders [43] doesn't make for notable relations. lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, quite a few multilateral mentions. [44]. agreeing to cooperate on money laundering is very common between any states who want to trade [45]. LibStar (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG, no significant third party coverage in its 21 year history of the organisation. [46]. LibStar (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Merge and delete is not possible. The page will be moved to New Zealand Police Negotiation Team, with redirect suppressed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the information can be merged to New Zealand Police but the article should be deleted. the term "Police Negotiation Team" is used for 100s of police forces worldwide. [47]. LibStar (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Young footballer that have no appearances in a fully professional league. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Rettetast (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Consensus here is that the article falls under WP:IINFO. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
The article is a dumping ground for whatever news articles made the paper. All significant events have been moved to their own article, and the rest is useless trivia. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unreferenced, unpublished, apparently not even completed Beach drifter (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFF "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. Budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." Bazj (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Jayron32 17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination - article has expanded since this nomination, and thus does not require the action of this panel.keystoneridin! (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was withdrawn by nominator My error, I looked at the wrong charts. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A series of non-notable compilation albums created by a clothing company. While individual songs on some of them may be notable and some of the artists may be notable, the compilation album is not. It never charted, nor does it pass WP:ALBUMS in any way I can see. There is a lack of distinct lack of coverage about the album by multiple reliable third party sources. Any mentions really discuss the songs, which were just thrown together into this album, not recorded for this album.Niteshift36 (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason, WP:ALBUMS:[reply]
Note: Volume 4 has its own AfD:WP:Articles for deletion/Atticus: ...Dragging the Lake, Vol. 4. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article subject fails WP:POLITICIAN not having served in a first level sub-national political office. I've not been able to locate any reliable sources which would establish her notability and get her across the line under section 3. Crafty (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete - is a member of a local office who has not had significant media coverage.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Deleted, as its author called {{db-author}}. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
No evidence of notability. Tagged since February. —SlamDiego←T 05:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Strong Delete - References on the article lead to web pages that have no information about this article.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. Per WP:G12. SoWhy 18:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The creator contested a prod. This is a dictinary defination. Joe Chill (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy deleted as a G12 copyright infringement of dictionary.reference.com. I'm not sure how much unique phrasing there was, that would actually constitute as plagiarism of their words, but nonetheless it was a direct copy/paste. This AfD was beginning to snow, too, since the article was simply a dictionary definition. JamieS93 21:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary-style definition, against WP:DICTIONARY Nat Gertler (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Musician claiming notability for having appeared as a contestant on the MTV series Making His Band. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 03:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Delete no evidence of notability and there appears to be a conflictof interests. Boleyn3 (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 00:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unencyclopedic, does not use grammatical English, is unsourced, is uncategorized, and may be a commercial post from the company whose equipment's picture is linked within the text (http:\\guanbochina.com). This is the first and only contribution of GBbraider. The article is an orphan. - PKM (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. No third party sources available to help establish notability. Nikki♥311 02:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW. Nakon 05:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, and the AfD tag has been removed
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that this film is beyond the pre-production stage and seems to involve mostly very obscure character actors. V. Joe (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) 12:50, 1 August 2009 (CDT)
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes no claims of notability of this cocktail. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Existence is not notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Article was deleted via AfD just a few weeks ago. This version is just enough improved that I don't think a G4 speedy deletion would apply, but the issues from the first AfD have not really been addressed. One ref is a blog, another is a fan site, and the addictivethoughts site is written by a single person, so I'm pretty much calling this a blog. FWIW, I was for merging/redirecting the first go around, and I still think that's the way to go, but consensus was for delete, so I'm respecting that and bringing to AfD. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: There is, in fact, a track listing. The cover art is visible, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.194.47 (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. I have read through the article and feel a relist is unnecessary here. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability (see WP:BIO). Likely an autobiographical entry. — ERcheck (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article created, but the actual subject of the article is unclear. It seems that the creating editor in question has used [54] this article as his source (as for a couple of other articles), but that ref is a bit dubious (since several names of political parties are misspelt, and that the claims are not repeated in other newsreports on the 2002 conference). The name given in the ref is just "Communist Marxist of Punjab", which is most likely a spelling error. Perhaps it could have been the Ram Mangal Pasla group (which often was referred to as 'CPM(Punjab)' or likewise), but politically that would be a bit odd. Soman (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company, fails WP:ORG. Google returns nothing. (Alt search: 1, 2 (through gnews)). Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 20:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google proves existence, but not notability, nor does it reveal any reliable sources--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. No reason given for keeping. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people show up in the Venona papers, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt. [55] 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) 06:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet the slimmest standards of notability and evidently has no readily accessible biographical information anywhere of even the basic type. Plenty of Americans were accused of being Soviet spies in the McCarthyite 1940s and 1950s and consequently show up in the FBI's files. There is a possible BLP violation, since we have no date of birth or date of death. PasswordUsername (talk)
|
The result was delete. No reason given for keeping. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people show up in the Venona papers, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt. [56] 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) 05:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Article is nothing more than a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystoneridin (talk • contribs) 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. No reason given for keeping. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people show up in the Venona papers, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt. [57] 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) 05:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. No reason given for keeping. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not seem to meet the WP:Notability criterion, even by a long stretch. There were plenty of people accused of being communist spies during the Cold War: this one does not even provide a validation of guilt, nor a date of birth and a date of death. The American spies for the Soviet Union category, which I created in order to support Category:Americans accused of spying for the Soviet Union, which was subsequently deleted on the basis that it should not, of course, include people of unconfirmed guilt, is now quite full of similar entries. Sadly, the bulk of those people – Levin and other unnotables lacking basic biographical data – were moved right back into the American Soviet spies category. I guess that the only solution is deleting each of these alleged spies – and we might start with a woman who shows up here only on thr basis of one accusation. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was withdrawn. NAC. Tim Song (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Sven O. Høiby. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the GNG. No significant third-party sources, just name-dropping in various tabloids. Erotic dancer who was married for three months to the father of a woman who married into the Norwegian royal family, no independent notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Russian Hill. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod - nothing that indicates how it's notable Falcon8765 (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Mega Man X series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gamecruft, no references and can easily be explained in the individual series articles. I am also nominating:
for the same reason.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect agreed, in case another editor finds some useful stuff on Mavericks, there is no need to be an article on it. Str8cash (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive#Zords. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spinoff article of spinoff article of fiction article. Very marginal notability. Lacks reliable sources. We already have Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive, and it already lists most of the "Zords". Too much detail for Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|