- Should paid editing as a CU be allowed?
- Community consultation on the state of Wikinews (and potential merger with Wikipedia)
- Call for candidates for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @745 · 16:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable demo song, fails WP:MUSIC. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This book has no assertion of notability. A search for the author's name has only 1 ghit. Triplestop x3 03:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @792 · 18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
This article was actually !voted a delete in earlier this year, but an admin changed it to a procedural keep due to a sockpuppet involvement. In short, the album fails WP:NALBUM. It was a non-notable mix tape from a barely notable artist that even the article, which was written by the artists manager, says was released for promotional purposes. Never charted and completely lacking reliable sources. Can't really speedy it, so here we are. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete per consensus --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod (tag removed by article creator) about a band that does not seem to pass WP:BAND. Another user tried to speedy this (the creator removed that tag too), and while I don't feel it should be speedied, well, all the references in the article lead to the band's own website, and a Google search mainly pulls up hits for an unrelated video game called Slave Zero. Moreover, the article and the website lists a discography of several albums created by the band, but the only slight info I could find was for the album called The Pain Remits, and the place where you can supposedly purchase that album from Amazon leads to a dead link. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Last year the Afd resulted in No Consensus. To date, there has been no reasons given why this individual is notable, nor relaible sources provided. As such, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find sources to show that his books (a 1999 Mahabharata novelisation and 2000 condensed version, and stories from Ramayana - in English) have been translated. Have I missed it from those cited? Plutonium27 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC). I also checked out the subject's website (which includes publisher info). Plutonium27 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Olafur Eliasson. (X! · talk) · @699 · 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a work of art that hasn't recieved the serious, in-depth coverage that is necessitated by [WP:N]]. I'd like to avoid a redirect because the title doesn't specify that this is an article about a work of art. ThemFromSpace 20:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @699 · 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't appear to be notable, and has no sources on it. It looks like a self-made record label with nothing of apparent note released on it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable radio network; no reliable sources are available. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Klamm. —Emufarmers(T/C) 08:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @699 · 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn website ZagZagg (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- 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. If someone wants to create a redirect they can. Wizardman 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2esae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't satisfy the criteria specified here. Specifically, "The Hardest" has not been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Aditya (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsourced and non-notable per WP:ARTIST (is mentioned once, in passing, in the NTY article linked), so delete and redirect to Graffiti Research Lab. Unitanode 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Dcs's post below, I've added that I believe this article should be redirected to GRL. Unitanode 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge with Graffiti - graffiti art by its very nature resists the kind of coverage one needs for notability. The case is interesting (though likely non-notable) because it seems he was being made a case by New York - for whatever reason - and caused the Brooklyn graffiti community to fundraiser and rally on his behalf, to pay his legal fees which the artist describes as being debilitating. Also seems much of the press related to this is associated with his pals Graffiti_Research_Lab - who are notable enough. You sometimes see this, groups take on a cause, only to get press for themselves.... Whatever the case, he shouldn't have his own page, he's not notable enough in his own right. Deadchildstar (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 merge to McWane. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but there is not really enough comments to establish a consensus. Closing as "merge" as a good argument is made for doing so but consider this a "no consensus" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:CORP. Iowateen (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. 26 days is long enough. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
There seems to be little evidence of notability. The bands that he is associated with do not have wiki pages, and from googling do not seem notable in themselves. magnius (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the question of User:Polargeo here : fr:Discussion_Projet:Rock#Christope_Godin. I don't know this guitarist at all, but as I know almost no guitar players, it doesn't prove anything :) Anyway, I've found this article : [1] which talks about him and, as France Inter is a really famous french radio, could be a good source. In this article : [2], it's written that he has played in an "international guitar and bass guitar festival". Here you have the list of the people who have played in this festival :
Maybe you could check these names to see if they are famous guitar players. Lot of articles from the website http://www.guitariste.com (big french website specialized in guitar actuality) say lot of good about him, but I don't know if it's enough to prove his notability... Here is a music compilation from this website : [3] and the article says :
Which means : "13 tracks of differents music styles where you will listen to a lot of famous guest, from Christophe Godin to Jean-Michel Kajdan..." (approximately, as you've noticed, my english isn't really good ;) ) I hope this would help and if you find some others french articles which could bring some evidence of his notability, feel free to ask me for a translation, I'll try to do my best. Balrogou (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to List of Harper's Island episodes. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Also nominated:
Delete - per WP:EPISODE, no indication that the individual episodes of this TV series are independently notable. Articles are little more than plot summaries, in violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Text is closely adapted from the CBS site and may constitute a copyvio. PRODs removed from all articles by an editor who has made no edits outside Harper's Island articles. Otto4711 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should continue elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cities in which I have nominated do not have enough buildings of a substantial height to have their own list. Many of these lists already exist, and are meant for cities with large skylines, like New York and Chicago for example. Cities like Amarillo with less than ten buildings over 150 meters are nominated here, and should be deleted. Fryedk (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @092 · 01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well-intentioned list but any list starting with "notable performers" is bound to face serious trouble of OR. What is a "notable performer of the 12-string guitar"? A notable musician who has touched a 12-string? (this seems to be the current criterion) If so, the list might as well include any professional guitarist. If not, what makes someone's 12-string use significant enough for inclusion on the list? Simply unmaintainable. Pichpich (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. It's obvious that the people who said keep are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and as such, have been discounted. That leaves a consensus to delete. (X! · talk) · @092 · 01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was removed, so I am sending to to AfD. No real notability established. External sources is local newspapers about some organisation, not the person itself. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 20:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @092 · 01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only possible way this doesn't fail WP:BAND is if the "Independent Music Awards" counts as a "major music award". Since we don't have an article on them, I'm guessing not. —Chowbok ☠ 20:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. It's clear that this group is notable, thanks to the given sources. (X! · talk) · @701 · 15:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
I am fixing this broken nomination by Da Killa Wabbit and am not expressing any opinion myself -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 20:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article is a list of events that lacks sources that discuss and analyze the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @092 · 01:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable game invented a few months ago. Polly (Parrot) 18:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep, The song has indeed been charted, currently at #35 on the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs billboard, this merits notability and therefore should be kept per the most recent consensus. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC) 04:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Unreleased single, has not charted. Might be notable eventually but not right now. Fails WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @792 · 18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable 25 second sound clip. It hasn't been released as a single and hasn't appeared on any charts. The song clip fails notability per WP:NSONGS. All relevant information can and should be added to "A Horse with No Name". Pyrrhus16 18:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] This song has no relevance to "A Horse With No Name" besides the fact that it sounds similar. This song will prove historical as it is the very first snippet of music heard following Jackson's Death. Whether it is 25 seconds long or two minutes long, it is still music and it is still an interesting topic that people would like to find out about. As time goes on, this page will develop and morph into the full song's article, however, as long as people want to know about Jackson's leaked music, this article should remain intact. --JDelo93 (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fan fiction board. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. It's clear that there are sources that are reliable, and as such, it passes the notability argement. (X! · talk) · @095 · 01:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
The first discussion was closed as no consensus, primarily due to the sheer volume of voters directed there from deletionpedia itself and lack of critical analysis of the quality of the sources cited (the second was just a goof). I believe the sources cited are either (1) not independent (i.e. sourced to deletionpedia itself), (2) not reliable (blogs and such), or (3) only trivial mentions, and thus fail the notability guidelines at WP:WEB. The short version is this: websites must be notable enough to receive substantial non-blog media coverage. Deletionpedia has only been mentioned trivially offweb and this article is nearly all information sourced to deletionpedia itself or blogs. Long version: there are 15 footnotes. 6 are links to deletionpedia itself. The CIO reference is original research, mentioning the concept of a “wikimorgue” but not deletionpedia. 20 Minuten is a non-reliable Swiss tabloid, and in any case contains only one sentence about deletionpedia, the rest of the (short) article being about Wikipedia itself. The WSJ reference is a textbook trivial mention in a human interest story 99% about Wikipedia. The Industry Standard used to be a real newspaper, but went bankrupt in 2001 and now is essentially a web-only blog, no more reliable than the average blog. Slashdot is just a reposting of one of the Industry Standard articles. The claim that the article was subjected to the Slashdot effect is, of course, more original research; as the reference is only a link to the Slashdot page. The De Telegraaf link (translation is another web-only trivial mention, essentially a human interest blurb. Theinquirer.de is another web-only blog as is ars technica (albeit slightly more well-known). The last source comes the closest, but at the end of the day these are web-only human interest stories. Ars technica is notable, but not reliable enough to establish the notability of other topics on its own. Savidan 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @093 · 01:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has sat for a week as an empty placeholder article. The current content simply restates the title (so it's a possible A3 speedy, although I've tried that already, and let it go rather than edit war with the author). I don't see much prospect for a longer article. Either this is going to be an empty tautology like is is now, or it's going to largely duplicate encyclopedia. This could fly with some background or history specific to multilingual encylopedias, but so far there's no sign of either. Seems to have come out of user's edits to Wikipedia, they didn't like "multilingual encyclopedia" being two links instead of one. Hairhorn (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @094 · 01:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Excessive fancraft. Call it 1632craft or whatever, but universal background is excessive. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Tan | 39 05:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely fictional battles. No indication of real-world notability. The excessive quotations could also be a copyright concern. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| ||||||
The result was delete. Tone 10:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
No indication of notability. Mixtape failed to chart and did not receive substantial coverage from secondary reliable sources, thus not meeting the criteria for inclusion (WP:NALBUMS). Prod was contested. — Σxplicit 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- 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 deleted. Enigmamsg 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Robloxian Politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Absolute nonsense, WP:NFT violation. Triplestop x3 16:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Barely coherent writing, non-notable feature of an online game. (But not a G1 speedy delete, that's for literal nonsense, not bad writing, although this is arguably a borderline case.) Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, another rationale should've been used. Definitely a speedy candidate, though. Enigmamsg 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Being an orphaned article or of perceived poor literary quality are not reasons for deletion. Those who are bold are welcome to take the initiative to merge the article. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Orphan. Poor quality. No other articles of format 'Jehovah's Witnesses in [country]' exist, and JW activities in Nigeria are not especially notable. Jeffro77 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @094 · 01:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Adeyemi Dweller (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @094 · 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Adeyemi Dweller (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @094 · 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Adeyemi Dweller (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @094 · 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Adeyemi Dweller (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. By the end, people are agreeing that the article should be kept. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:N and WP:BK, Googling shows no sources available to establish notability. Artw (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. G4 - nothing has changed since the first AfD. Black Kite 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Adeyemi Dweller (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources gives any significant coverage beyond "She sold eight zillion tickets, and Kellie Pickler and Gloriana toured with her". Tours are almost inherently non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @094 · 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable stuntman. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:Entertainer. Prod removed by article creator with no reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- 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 deleted (A7 - article about web content with no credible claim of significance or importance). the wub "?!" 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Scribble Ninja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non notable game, only references are to authors own website WuhWuzDat 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, Facepunch is not his website. I can include a link to every single topic he's posted there, and I'll find some more references. Second, I might as well create an article that is as balanced as possible before he creates one that touts it as the next Super Mario Bros. Even if he wouldn't, it's not like creating an 29.6 kb article is going to be a strain on Wikipedia. I would understand if it was bigger, more notable, or horribly unbalanced and badly spelled, but it's not. Adam Eldemire (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, smells of promotion Triplestop x3 16:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Minor school board administrator in Memphis. Has some peer-reviewed articles, but from before his current job - presumably from his previous life as an academic. But he is not notable as an academic either. Hairhorn (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that the article does a good job of making the company sound important, but there is insufficient substantial reliable source coverage to back that up and demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 08:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claim that "Inglesina is the unique company in the world, that produces prams with this particular design" is unsubstantiated -- both that it is "the unique" ("only", I assume) company, or that these pram designs matter. Article reads like an advertisement. --EEMIV (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 08:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is it notable in itself to run for election and loosing? I think not and propose deletion of this article unless notability can be demonstrated. Favonian (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- 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 copyvio, also spam (non admin closure) - 2 ... says you, says me 03:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Franklin Casco, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertisement for a personal-injury lawyer and how much mony he makes for his clients. Only sources are passing mentions of lawsuits and a press release. Calton | Talk 14:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Duck says.... attorney advertising masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Why not just throw in a cheesy slogan like "The Hammer" or "The Heavy Hitters" while you're at it... - 2 ... says you, says me 15:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam. Those lines about how much money he got don't really help. Triplestop x3 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per both above. TJRC (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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} 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased album (not scheduled for release until November). Album will not, apparently, even be called "LP7" - it's unnamed, as well as unreleased. Appears to fail
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an essay and would require a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. WuhWuzDat 13:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you wrote the message just some minutes ago, I did already request that the username is changed, but I suppose the request is also not handled in seconds. As for the article, I have deleted the first part, I understand that it is more similar to an essay and maybe too biased. The part about anti-corruption treaties, however, adds something new to the encyclopedia and is only based on facts. Please comment on that and tell me how to improve it! I'm new here, and as I have read wikipedia welcomes the contribution of amateurs (like me), so I am really only trying to help and give people more information. --Fightagainstcorruption (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[[27]] [[28]] [[29]] etc, it goes on down the list. Maybe you can make a list of anticorruption laws that link to their pages without the summaries. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hello, I have considerably shortened the article to avoid having the same information as in other entries. I have also created a new article about the African Union Convention about Corruption, because this article still had to be edited. I have also added a "stub" note to this article here, because it needs to be extended. The anti-corruption treaties should now be allright, but I have not added anything about civil society initiatives, etc. I will see if I have time for that soon, and maybe other people will contribute. What do you think about the article now? What should be improved? Thank you for your help! --Fightagainstcorruption (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again - The reason why I started this Article is the short sentence concerning "fighting corruption" in the Political corruption-article: Mobile telecommunications and radio broadcasting help to fight corruption, especially in developing regions like Africa,[24] where other forms of communications are limited. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption#Fighting_corruption). It does not give a good picture of what is really done, on local, national, regional, international level, to tackle corruption. I think that this short sentence might be misleading, because it omits a lot of things. Should we maybe move the information contained in the present article to this section? --Fightagainstcorruption (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 08:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary list. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. Google searches produce only a "walled garden" of similar hoax entries. Images are largely amateurish photoshop, all tagged with "Own work by uploader". Completing broken AfD nom begun by User:Bernasco. Hairhorn (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Any accusations of canvassing aside, there is still definitely no consensus to delete this article at all. I have taken no action on the other five articles nominated, as they were added far too late in the discussion. ~ mazca talk 08:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This derivative article is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article about the series. This new article is merely a means to include an expanded plot summary (as explained by the "creator" here and provides no unique real-world coverage, so should be deleted per WP:PLOT. — TAnthonyTalk 18:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the discussion is over an individual book in this series, the other books should be added:
--Smashvilletalk 18:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @746 · 16:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about something that doesn't exist (supposedly it will on Jan 1, 2010), with no reputable sources. Looie496 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails wp:music: the only source is a wordpress blog. There's nothing at [30]. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-22t11:38z 11:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- 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 NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) under G5 (Non-admin closure). The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Michel Magne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable Concernedfather (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable (see fr:Michel Magne), article needs expansion. WuhWuzDat 12:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 1962 Oscar nominee. Article doesn't make the case for notability, but he is notable. Hairhorn (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but expand, a search of this shows notability. Triplestop x3 16:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG hardly any third party coverage, [31], 2 of the 5 articles are for someone winning an award for working for this organisation, rather than an article about the organisation itself. Google search is mainly directory listings and mirror sites. LibStar (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to List of parishes of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] More Catholic churches in Hawaii[edit]
Two Catholic parishes in Hawaii: unlike the ones at this AFD, there's a bit of content, but neither of these articles have any content derived from reliable sources. All information is either unsourced, derived from blogs, or taken from church publications. In short — no demonstration of notability, and no reason to expect that there is any notability either. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete and create a redirect to the album at What Do You See. The consensus here seems to be that it fails WP:NSONGS, and also that a redirect to the album here would be an unlikely search term due to the extraneous (single) disambiguation. ~ mazca talk 08:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:NSONGS. Redirect to album reverted. RadioFan (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. The keep arguments are stronger than the merge/redirect arguments. However, this does not preclude merging if there is consensus to do so on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
I believe this article violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), being a partial plot summary of a fictional work. I have nominated it separately because it contains a "Controversy" section talking about various production details. I do not believe any of the external links in this section, however, to constitute reliable sources. They are links to fan forums or else articles on fan sites and thus do not demonstrate out-of-universe notability. The first nomination (linked to right) was flawed I believe, referencing the number (rather than the quality or type) of google and google books hits. Articles about fiction should be expected to get google books hits, as google books includes fictional works, in-universe works (fan encyclopedias, etc.), and so on. None of the keep voters made an effort to show how any of these hits constituted out-of-universe notability. The article as it stands contains no information cited to reliable published sources demonstrating any out of universe significance at all, let alone notability. Savidan 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Substantial coverage in reliable sources do seem to lead most participants to agree this passes WP:N. There's something of a collision of notability standards here - the fact that they play in the top tier of a national league in the sport should make them notable without question, but the sheer obscurity of American football in Britain means it's actually rather borderline. Nonetheless, the prevailing opinion does seem to be to keep this; although this close should not preclude a possible discussion about the notability of BAFL teams overall. ~ mazca talk 08:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG, and would certainly fail WP:ATHLETE if it extended to athletic organisations. I can find no references that are reputable, detailed and independent of the source. There are many that fulfill two of three (their website, the website of BAFL, so on) but nothing decent. Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- 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. the wub "?!" 11:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Al Ta'awon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Team of the Lybian Second Division - fails WP:ORG by a long shot per the refs I can find. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 20:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The standard for notability for a football team, is usually whether they play (or at least are eligble) in their national cup. And this team does, and has played in several competitions, mosty recently in 2006/07. As such I'd think that all teams in this league - the second tier of Libyan football - would be notable (which probably explains why they ALL have articles). Nfitz (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there individual standards for sports teams? I couldn't find any. I'd be grateful if you could point me in their direction, and if that is the base standard I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Ironholds (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an essay WP:FOOTYN that has a standard on club notability. However it is just an essay, so it's not binding; other than that there are the other AfD's in the past ... and I wish I could think of an easy way to search them ... though I note that every team in this division has an article. Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Nfitz. GiantSnowman 09:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 merge to Webcast. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Non-encyclopedic article; it is basically a dicdef or borderline neologism and the notability remains dubious. The page survived an AfD discussion 18 months ago but has not been worked on since then. It is not linked to by any mainspace articles. Paddles TC 10:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @701 · 15:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE having never played in a FPL per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Article claims appearances in MSL but references supplied do not back that up, showing only that he played in reserve games, and Web search failed to prove otherwise. Current club in Suomi is too far down the pyramid. No significant coverage found to satify WP:GNG ClubOranjeT 09:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @701 · 15:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE having never played in a FPL per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. No significant coverage found to pass WP:GNG ClubOranjeT 09:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was snowy delete --B (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR - unreferenced (by definition), spammy (removed EL). Deprodded by original author without improvement. 7 talk | Δ | 09:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- 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. -- Alexf(talk) 22:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Animus (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a new (2009) band, with no indication that it has been signed. No web presence could be found via google (indicating but not proving limited notability). Of the two sources cited, one has so far been unverifiable (though someone with access to the paper's hard-copy archives might try). The second is a web forum (so not a reliable source), where no mention of Animus or the band's founder could be found by me.
None of the criteria at WP:BAND appear to be met. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. First source fails WP:V, second fails WP:RS. Band does not meet WP:N/WP:BAND. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Band is not specifically notable as a band, as noted above. It also fails the general notability guidelines. Additionally, the reference to the Stratford Herald interview is so vague that it's difficult, if not impossible, to verify that source. I'm just this side of speedy deleting it under A7. —C.Fred (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Chances are, any music article containing the words "they have performed various gigs around the area" and then proceeds to list covers played by the band doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Doesn't help that the band was formed this year, with no otherwise famous founding musicians. Daniel815 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete – most definitely not meeting WP:BAND and I nearly did speedy delete it myself til I saw AfD notice. – B.hotep •talk• 22:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 deleted (A7 - article about web content with no credible claim of significance or importance). the wub "?!" 10:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dudeskull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nonnotable subject of forum wars as the dispute hasn't been discussed in any external media. ThemFromSpace 08:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Delete any unreferenced biographies. Dr. Blofeld has respectfully requested that these articles be deleted. Given the author request combined with the mandate to delete here, I'm closing this discussion. An admin, likely Juliancolton (possibly with help from others), will go through the list to ensure that any articles that have been improved since creation are not deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Claus Peter Poppe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
From the discussion here, 2798 biographies (some BLPs, some BPDs) were created in the past few days by one editor in good faith. These politician bios were transwikied from the German Wikipedia using AWB. They are each sub-stubs which include only the same introductory sentence and no actual references. The reference section links to the original German article, some of which are not referenced. So, in addition to this article, this nomination also includes the other 2797 articles listed here.
If this listing was done incorrectly, I apologize. I'm not sure how to nominate this many articles at once, and tagging them seems implausible. But, considering the circumstances, I think notification to the author and Dr. Blofeld is sufficient. Lara 06:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all unreferenced biographies: With no prejudice to re-create them at a later time with proper references. (Note: Linking to the German Wikipedia, to me at least, does not qualify as a reference. Wikipedia, even the German variant, is not a reliable source.) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The articles are a BLP nightmare, and a libel case just waiting to happen, adding strain to an already overworked system with articles in the vein of "Hans-Ulrich Pfaffmann is a German politician, representative of the Social Democratic Party". The articles can be recreated in time by those interested in the subject matter, since those people will hopefully have the inclination to write a decent article, reference it and watchlist it to keep a good eye on it. Ironholds (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) and MzMcBride's point above (which I don't know why nobody brought up at WP:AN/I - referencing another WP version is not "referencing". Ironholds (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ironholds. Yeeesh. Crafty (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. In my experience, having stubs like this (which makes it look like we have an article while there is only a substub listing name and party affiliation) is actually counterproductive and makes it take longer until we have a proper article. (Personally, I enjoy filling red links, possible with a DYK-worthy article, but hardly ever expand substubs). The people should be sorted by their political position and then added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/German politicians to request creation of proper articles. Kusma (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After reading through the discussion link Lara posted, I'm convinced that this has to be a delete. If anyone wants to take on expanding a few, they should have it userfied, but as such there are enough BLP articles out there to source, including the ones that haven't been tagged. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 07:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All of the articles that I've spot-checked on Juliancolton's page read "X is a German politician, representative of the Social Democratic Party." even if the subject is clearly dead, such as Karl Müller (1890–1968). This shows an utter lack of care on the part of the creator and I doubt that many of these will be improved to a usable standard anytime soon. No prejudice against recreation of any or all of these if each are given personal attention. Slightly off topic, but I am also concerned that the creator is an Autoreviewer, which means that none of these articles were subject to the eyes of new page patrollers. To me, this casts a shadow on the concept of the editor group as a whole and I think closer scrutiny should be used for assigning this privilege to editors in the future. ThemFromSpace 07:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Kusma (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all without prejudice to recreation with references and actual content. "X is a German politician" contains so little information as to be entirely useless to the reader. Additionally, as it stands, these articles are so poor as to be borderline A7 candidates. "X is a German politician" does not even establish notability. Is X a cabinet minister, an MP, an MEP, a local councillor, or just someone who once stood in a local election? And of course, creating thousands of unwatched, unmaintained, unloved BLPs to which anyone with a grudge can add libel which may go un-noticed for months or years is a very bad idea indeed. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 07:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per failure to establish notability as written, conform to WP:BLP. No objection to recreation in a useful form, i.e. with dates of birth and death, political position and at least one source. Sandstein 07:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. I stumbled into this issue when I noticed auto-created articles for Claus Weselsky and Manfred Schell. Both were created as "German politicians", but are, in fact, trade union leaders who just happen to be party members (a fact merely worth mentioning). So beside the poor amount of information in these articles, the little information provided often seem to be false and misleading. --Bigbug21 (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. I began reviewing the articles after the discussion started on AN/I. Per my comment here, I found this article and many others to not have in line citations in the German version of the article. Many of the German articles were stub length and not a high quality well sourced article that I would automatically consider a keep if uploaded to Wikipedia English as a translation. I don't want to keep articles that might have stale or unsourced information about people if we were to use the German version of the article. And I don't want to keep these pre-stub length articles in the state that they now exist with little chance that they will be updated and maintained as a group. FloNight♥♥♥ 07:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. I don't care what the formal reason for deleting is, if any. Unsourced BLP that doesn't even establish notability should suffice in most cases. The real point is that this doesn't help us build the encyclopedia, and it has a serious potential to hurt some subjects. (At least they haven't got around to doing the PDS or the NPD yet. Membership in one of these parties reduces one's employment choices, and the German party categories include people who left the party.) Hans Adler 08:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all BLPs that aren't sourced when this is closed. I'm as amazed by this as everyone else. There's no effort to provide any independent coverage by reliable sources and with the volume and the way these were created it's unlikely that the creator intended to provide such sources. Add to this that they contain nothing that can't be found in List of Social Democratic Party of Germany members and I'd say you have as strong a candidate for deletion as you can get. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All. I'd also suggest a closing message detailing that Wikipedia would be very receptive to recreation providing that they are referenced. We want the articles - we just don't want them the way they are. Pedro : Chat 08:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't mass delete the ones that are about deceased persons. It is easy to spot those by looking at the German version to see if a death date is given. Those are not a BLP problem and we can afford to wait for people whose German is better than mine to review them individually to see if there see if there are sources. Cardamon (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All - Given that many of these are BLPs, and unlikely to be watched (who can watch 3,000 articles, for crying out loud?) then they need to be mass deleted and then perhaps transferred individually with references, or their names merged to appropriate articles/lists if they aren't completely notable. Skinny87 (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lost for words' - I can't believe this. These are notable biographies and should be expanded not deleted. Over half of them do not even violate BLP . This is really silly. I've expanded this nomintation and it is clearly notable and within guidelines this politician was one of the List of members of the Lower Saxon Landtag 2003-2008 a representative of regional parliament and you honestly think sources can't be found??. God give us a few weeks to expand a few of them. I DO NOT waste my time and neither does Albert in that we create articles we believe could reasonably be expanded immediately by anybody. You are all the lazy ones by taking the easy way out and deleting articles which in due course will become perfectly accpetable and much needed encyclopedia articles. This is the kind of ignorance I've come to expect from the shitty community (meaning editors give each other little support when most of us all have a common goal) that runs this website and forces away the decent editors . A bot could EASILY salvage all of these articles by adding a reference linked to the main website of the parties and reliable publication and just sheer hard work to fill them out. These articles WILL be started again so I think we should not waste time and just work hard at expanding them. If people here really care about content in the long term they would certainly not think deleting articles which can become acceptable within minutes would be the right answer. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do care about the long term - we appreciate that in the long term, these articles could be valuable additions to Wikipedia's coverage. In the short term, however (and unless you are a bot, I mean " the next six months") these are nothing more than one massive liability. I'm sure you and Albert can work on a few, but that's the problem - you can only do a few. If a few is what you can maintain, limit yourself to writing a few. Sheer hard work is being used to cut down the current BLP backlog, a backlog you've massively added to. With the size it is currently at it will be months before people get near your articles. If you have such a problem with the Wikipedia community then you can leave, and read WP:STICK on the way out. Ironholds (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support deletion because I think we should have articles about these people. What is proposed for deletion are not articles. Kusma (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look I don't have a problem with everybody here. There some very kind and helpful editors on here who are a pleasure to know and discuss things with. It is just the way the general community responds and sees us in bad faith for trying to start the transfer of content that's all. I agree to a point that these articles will require a massive amount of work, what I hate about the general response given here is the snippy comments that we should somehow be heartily ashamed of outsevles for trying to start the prcess of transferring notable articles into English. I just think some of the responses to this have been quite mean. I differ from a lot of people in that I look towards our long term goals for wikipedia, I root out articles and believe there is a set task for every subject to work towards. The problem here may be that the task is a little big for us to take on at least within the next few months so if there are BLP issues then I se eyour views. I just wish more people would see why such articles are created and why we create small stubs because of the sheer amount to transfer. As normal this is a conflict between quality and quantity. Ideally I'd like both but given the few editors who seme willing to help is often beyond possibility. Can't we at least keep several hundred of these articles to work through?
Claus Peter Poppe as it stands is not deletable, it meets our content requirements. Several hundred of these articles could be expanded with a reference similarly within a few days. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is wrong with deleting all the substubs and then working through the list? Kusma (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anyone assuming bad faith. I see a lot of people disagreeing with your good-faith actions though. I think it was implicit in all delete !votes that they apply only to the unsourced sub-stubs. I would expect the closer to make it explicit that whoever is going to perform the deletions should, if practicable, spare any seriously improved articles. Hans Adler 10:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm I've been called all sorted of names and been insulted many times during the ANI discussion unnecessarily. I do a lot of good work on wikipedia other than just creating stubs of which I rarely get credit for. Not one person has said that they appreciate my efforts to "try" to transfer content even if it was certainly not the best way to go about it. These article should and could all be translated and expand fully. The problem is lack of content and an external reliable source which will be difficult to tackle manually in the short time at least. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right so we've established that we definately think these articles have the potential to be good articles at least that's something. The problem is that nobody was bothering to start the articles. I think the best solution would be to remove the BLP tags with a bot. Then maybe delete the living ones using German wikipedia as a check until they can be started fully. We can at least work towards the deceased bios which do not violate BLP. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These people have potential to have articles written about them, but that does not mean we need these substubs. Kusma (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way wikipedia has grown to date has revealed that if the article is created it stands a much better chance of being expanded. A lot of people ignore red links and will not create an article but if they come across a lacking article may wish to expand it. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience that's WP:BOLLOCKS. When I see a redlink I'm a lot more likely to write an article on the thing than if there was something sub-standard there that I'd have to work into my prose. a lot of articles drew my attention because of the honking red words in the middle of an article that mentioned them, not because I went to them first and went "this needs to be expanded". Ironholds (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. We have loads of poorly written articles now. We are behind on maintaining them already. A large number of our articles about people are stale because they are not updated after the original user starts them. Frequently, articles are on few people's watchlist so vandalism with remain for hours, days, or sometimes weeks and months. This is a large issue already that will not be helped by adding thousands of articles that are on no one's watchlist. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not alright to start any article without content or sources. There needs to be a minimum standard for the content that is added to Wikipedia English. We give some leeway to brand new users for adding material that is poorly written and sourced. There is not any reason that we should allow it from experienced users. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a reason nobody starts a particular article; lack of interest. Creating stubs won't change that, why would it? The stubs you created for all those Greek museums never went anywhere. Abductive (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm that's why wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles on low league baseball and soccer players and lists of Pokemon charatcers rather than decent articles about national Greek museums. If that is the interest of wikipedians overwhlemingly I wonder what that tells us about the people who use wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If people want to write about pokemon, who are we to stop them? If you know that Wikipedians are interested in such areas rather than more serious subjects then creating 3,000 articles and expecting the same community to pick up the pieces is just.. well, silly. Ironholds (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This gives me an idea... Abductive (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a volunteer project. Nobody is obliged to work in any particular area so it's not surprising that most editors prefer to write about subjects that they are interested in and know something about. This does mean that there are many subject areas which have the potential for good articles which never get written because there few or no editors with the time, interest or inclination to write them - be it Greek museums, villages in Uzbekistan or minor German politicians. But this is an inevitable consequence of the way Wikipedia works, and the mass-creation of sub-stubs won't change it, or cause dozens of editors to develop an interest in German politicians and start working on the articles. And if some editors with an interest in German politicians do come along and decide to start writing proper articles about some of these people (which I agree would be a worthwhile thing for someone to do, though I doubt anything like 3000 good articles will be written any time soon), they won't find their job is made more difficult by the lack of one-line substubs. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 11:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I do me best to try to overcome the bias and uneveness in articles on here but I can't force people to edit articles they are not interested in. I've created a lot of good articles about places all over the world but little in comparison to what could and should be written. This is why I create so many stubs is because I try to venture into poorly developed areas and try in the long term to make them produce results by relying on the sheer traffic and mix of interests this site has. A lot of my stubs have been expanded into really good articles, even the most seemingly "perma stub" type of stubs like Der Müller und sein Kind for instance and Xinjiang Medical University etc (which is what inspires me to create more) but there are also many of my stubs which have remained untouched. I am pretty certain a fair number of these German politicians will have fairly decent articles eventually. If you believe it is best to build it one at a time rather than building upon 3000 empty stubs then I respect your views people I just really hate the tone of some of the editors especially at ANI and how they react to an honest attempt to develop wikipedia. I am a human being, I have feelings. At least the nominator Jenna has not described me as "intellectually lazy" anyway.
Where editors like myself and Albert differ in our outlook on wikipedia is that we see a fixed amount of articles on any given subject and believe that we as a project are working towards providing a more complete coverage of each subject with a fixed amount of articles to work towards and build up. I believe it was exactly the same with these German politicians in that in order to catch up and work towards filling this field starting the articles however stubby was the first step on the path to a better future coverage of this area of the encyclopedia. Sure we knew it would take a lot of work but both Albert and I firmly believe that the articles were worthy of creation, however stubby because we believed the content exists on German wikipedia and the articles could have bene brought easily up to scratch. Luckily I managed to organize a bot to trasnfer articles on czech municipalities more efficiently it is a great shame I can't organize a project and bot to do the same thing here. I am thinking of proposing a new wikiproject dedicated to trasnwikiying articles properly and the use of a bot, judging how many people here seme to regard me I'm having second thoughts. I personally think this project would benefit massively from content translated form other wikipedias esepcially if supported by reliable sources. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're talking past each other here. I, for one, don't have a problem with you creating stubs for old movies or museums or geographic locations for that matter. The problem here is that many of these are BLPs. It has been consensus for quite a while now that these default to delete, meaning that the onus is on the creator to source them and prove that they are indeed notable. If you want to develop these one at a time with proper sourcing from the beginning then I don't have a problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with the creation of thousands of more underwatched stubs of living people. I'm not sure if you've worked with watching these articles in the past but politicians are frequent targets of very bad BLP violations. This just isn't a good idea. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, I'm glad you've clarified that. I agree if there are BLP problems but remember the BLP tagswere wrongly applied to half the articles on people who died 30 years ago etc . The misconception is that I don't want the encyclopedia to be of the highest quality as other people, I do, as much as anybody here, but I also think in order to achieve our project goals of "the sum of all knowledge" which is equally as important we could not ignore 99% of the notable politicians in Germany. I thought at least starting the articles was the first step even if they were poorly started. Can you understand how I view wikipedia? Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand completely and if this had been about any other area than BLPs I would probably agree but this is one area where growth without a plan for further improvement and patrolling isn't a good idea. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I think Claus Peter Poppe should be kept now anyway. Christian v. Ditfurth too. I'm certain if they had all been started like this we would not be here now. It is a valid source about a clearly notable politician. If I was fluent in German I'd expand it to b-class. Can we please keep this article even if you delete the others? If I try to fill out a handful of articles when we come to delete the mass can we at least keep the ones I've sorted a little bit? Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all unsourced BLPs. The rest could be salvaged. Alexius08 (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to go through the list and seperate the BLPs from the ones which are not. After all the BLP tags were applied wrongly to many many articles on deceased politicians which is partly what the problem was. I just need some time to be able to sort out the BLP vios. If you are going to delete the lot anyway I will not bother to at least try to salvage a few of them if you are adament they should all be deleted even if some of them are expanded to start class with references. Well. I'm probably wasting my time here. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral This is very long so I'm breaking it into sections. BLP issue: I don't think the BLP problem is too grave. For the same reason German politician articles are unlikely to be improved or watched in the short term, they are also unlikely to be vandalized. If someone wants to libel a relatively obscure German politician, they'll do it in the German wikipedia, not here. (And if someone wanted to write an attack, they could start a page to do so - though obviously this isn't true for IPs.) Value to readers: I think there is still significant value to readers, even when the articles are extremely short. They all include an expand tag that links to a machine translation of the German article, so English-language readers have immediate access to decent (if not great) information about the person they're looking for. Potential for expansion: I firmly believe that sub-stubs like this are more likely to be expanded than redlinks, because I have been monitoring translations done where {{Expand German}}-type tags had been on articles. Most of the translations that get done are actually by IPs and un-autoconfirmed users who would not have been able to start articles themselves. These new users find a stub and are immediately instructed on how to improve it - simply translate! This is a much easier undertaking than having to do research from scratch. Content of article in short term This is my biggest problem with these articles. A good number of the stubs created are inaccurate. I suggested that at very least the creators look for the word Politiker (politician) in the article before assuming that the subject is actually a politician. I think deletion might be productive so that these articles can be started with better information, with a bot reading basic facts from the German article and transferring the reference section to the English article. Conclusion I'm ok with deleting (but don't think it's necessary) because a nontrivial number of these articles are inaccurate. I don't think BLP problems justify deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I looked through the sub-stubs and the German articles, I saw several different problems. Much of the content in the German articles do not have inline citations. As well, some of the articles looked stale and out dated. So, if we bring that wording to Wikipedi-en, then we are not starting out ahead in my opinion. I think that all articles need to be sourced. We should not knowingly start any article without refs. We support our model for writing articles by non-experts by saying that our articles are sourced. That all content can be verified. If we are not doing this then we are not following core Wikipedia policy. For those reason, I think these articles need to be deleted (unless they have been improved with sourcing). FloNight♥♥♥ 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly how I feel about it actually. Especially what you said about the experiences we know of on many articles which have been expanded very well by IPs and we would not have had that content if it wasn't for them. So I do not think that view is WP:BOLLOCKS as was claimed above. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not that these articles were started but that care was not taken to write them at a minimum standard that we expect of users that are not newbies. We have loads of examples of stubs that have been on site for years without significant improvement and that have even grown worse with passing time because they are stale and outdated now. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I wish there was someway we could methodically plough through huge banks of missing articles and have everyone with adequate info and details first time. If they could be started in the way that Claus Peter Poppe is now I seriously doubt anybody in the community would seirously mind. A lot of new content could be started much more efficiently using well programmed bots and I have always requested them before I've started banks of stubs. The lack of bot operators actually interested in running bots to produce starter article more efficiently and productively seem extremely small compared to the amount that run bots for practically every other part of wikipedia. Maybe this is because the coding required to autogenerate articles correctly in this way is beyond most capabilities I don't know. What matters most to me is content and it a shabby human attempt by myself to try to do something about the mass of missing content on here. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete...speedy, if necessary. If it makes life easier for people, by all means...I didn't mean to cause problems, which is what this seems to have become. So get rid of the lot. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 13:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All. 1) In addition to the very real issue of sources and BLP considerations, I only see a few mentions of the fact that because a subject is notable on another Wikipedia site does not make it so here. Every article should display notability on its own merits. I'm a lightweight deleter, but still, after a couple of thousand deletions in the last year, I see a very common pattern: song article created and deleted because artist is non-notable; artist article created; song article re-created and no-longer qualifies for A9. There are similar scenarios; BIO articles created in near proximity to company articles, in support of each other. We're like deer in the headlights on this (sometimes). So here we have a similar situation: they're on another project's Wikipedia (a non-trivial one, at that - with apologies to other, less-established versions). But this doesn't mean they are notable here. No prejudice against recreation of any (or even all) if and when notability is established in reliable sources, same as any other article. 2) I would also like to see some sort of policy on trans-wiki articles and mass creation of new articles; that may not be appropriate in this discussion but it would help if such existed. I would add that, quite apart from the merits (or lack thereof) of these articles, their robotic creation clogged up the new pages patrol, such that those watching the list would have to look carefully for clear CSD candidates (which I agree these are not). The limitation on creation is a separate issue, not really for this AfD since they are already created, but bears noting. Frank | talk 13:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that Claus Peter Poppe is really non notable? WOuld you say that somebody who represented the Scottish Parliament would also not be notable? I am certain if you researched any of these articles you'd realise the vast majority are notable figures in German politics, that isn't the issue I'm sure. The problems are mainly those that have been highlighted previously. I can guarantee that a lot of these articles will be restarted eventually but perhaps rather more impressively than what was attempted recently. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But this doesn't mean they are notable here Disagree. If they are notable in Germany (or whatever country), then they are notable, fullstop. Just the same way some back-bench local politican is notable in the UK, regardless if anyone has heard of him/her in another country. Lugnuts (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By here I mean on en.wikipedia. Each project has its own definition of notability. The assertion of notability of these articles seems to be "they have an article on de.wikipedia", at least in part. I'm not by any means asserting they aren't notable, and I have no prejudice against the articles existing. But I don't think it's appropriate to carpet-bomb the project because the pages exist elsewhere and leave it for others to clean up. That's not expanding the project; it's expanding a "to-do" list. Frank | talk 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that Claus Peter Poppe is really non notable? Arguments from Incredulity don't work; arguments from evidence do. --Calton | Talk 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But this doesn't mean they are notable here Disagree. If they are notable in Germany (or whatever country), then they are notable, fullstop. Just the same way some back-bench local politican is notable in the UK, regardless if anyone has heard of him/her in another country. Lugnuts (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per my general reasoning at the ANI thread this sprung out of. There's no reasonable expectation that these articles will become more than stubs in months or even years, given that even the longstanding articles are stubs in their native language. They weren't given enough detail and sourcing in the beginning to merit their inclusion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now what you said there was reasonable and justifiable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all except the two I highlighted as worked on. OK so this didn't work out and it is obvious where this is headed. Can we please end this nomination and delete per request of the creator. I'm tired of this now. We get the point and I now have work to do in improving quality which believe it or not I am interested in. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all except those that are already being worked on, without prejudice to recreation with references and actual content, where the original article is already sufficiently well-referenced. - Pointillist (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all absent any actual work being on. The article creators should focus on actual quality rather than pumping up their edit counts. --Calton | Talk 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I improved Tea production in Sri Lanka and many others precisely for that reason, obviously true. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A proposal for the bulk deletion of almost three thousand articles has to be much more convincing than this is. I cannot countenance a drastic expansion of living person biography policy such that it would compass the deletion of any article that might be vandalized in the future, which seems to be the apparent concern. Even the Wikimedia Foundation resolution that underlies BLP policy observes that "(p)eople sometimes vandalize articles about living people. The Wikimedia community has developed tools and techniques for counteracting vandalism: in general they seem to work reasonably well." And, since Wikipedia is not paper, any political figure notable in the German language is also notable in English. It seems that people are becoming too timid rather than bold in the creation of new content, if an adequate article of a politician on a foreign language edition does not make a prima facie case for a translation of that article in English.
I'd suggest that a bulk deletion of these 3000 articles be first mooted on the German Wikipedia. See how that flies. If inadequacy of references, BLP concerns, or lack of notability leads to the deletion of the original articles in German, I'd defer to the German Wikipedia's conclusions and delete only those articles. But I doubt that a similar proposal for bulk deletion of material would sit well there. It shouldn't sit well here either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete all (except those that have been improved since the start of this AFD) as unreferenced one-lines but with no prejudice against recreation with actual sources and content. Any article(s) that have already been improved should be removed from the list though, so that they are not deleted with the mix. Abecedare (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all (except those that have been improved since the start of this AFD) as there is a clear duty of care on editors using automative tools, such as Bots, to ensure that their work stictly complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is a clear breach of good faith create or contribute to Wikipedia on an industrial scale if there is no quality control. The creator of these articles should be blocked indefinately - its clear that this mass creation of articles is just a stunt to attract attention. Childish pranks like this may be forgiven on a smaller scale, but on a large scale is hard to defend that this act of vandalism is not a premeditated attempt to disrupt Wikipedia on a grand scale. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion regarding the (absurd) call for the creator to be blocked has been moved to the talk page. Lara 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all From evidence already shown above, human hands (as opposed to bots) and reliable sources are both needed to fulfill core WP:BLP policy ("We must get the article right"). This mass creation of dodgy BLPs is all wrong. Allow recreation of individual articles by human hands, with reliable sources. Priyanath talk 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Substubs aren't useful. Articles are. Whoever will expand any of these substubs into an article can (and will) also simply create a new one to do the same. --Conti|✉ 15:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Claus Peter Poppe was a member of a state legislature in Germany, as is referenced in the article, which clearly meets WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and WP:V. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all which are referenced only to a Wikipedia in a different language. A Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Someone fluent in a language other than English who is actually willing to invest a little time, rather than running a poorly written bot or acting like a poorly written bot, could create articles about notable foreign politicians and improve Wikipedia. No bragging rights should accrue to an editor who runs up his edit count by creating such unreferenced stubs. Verify the reference in the foreign Wiki, then translate the article and include the reference. "Willi Brundert" is a German politician? No, Willi Brundert is dead. Such nonsense greatly harms this Wikipedia. If a German encyclopedia said "Calvin Coolidge is a U.S. politician" it would invite similar scorn of that encyclopedia. Get the basic facts correct and referenced or don't create the article. Do not run unapproved bots. Edison (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please end this debate. We know where it is headed and the stub creator has even voted delete. This is embarrassing to those involved and a very unpleasant situation which has caused the creator to leave wikipedia. Please end this asap, this is pretty much a snowball delete. Further drama here is unnecessary and I think you should do the decent thing any admin viewing this and make the obvious decision. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG, hardly any coverage [49]. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The GFNC does have well over a century of history, though there was a period of, let's say, dormancy, followed by reestablishment. I do not currently have access to the published history of the club of its first half century or so, though I will try to obtain some further info. Maias (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a fictional battle (in this case mentioned, not even depicted in the original work) that violates Wikipedia's policies about writing about fiction. I have nominated it separately because it include an original research-laden section about minor references in other fictional works. Savidan 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @701 · 15:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical term mentioned in a single magazine. Non-notable neologism. Oscarthecat (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union. (X! · talk) · @746 · 16:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG, no coverage [50], oppose redirect to Birds Australia because if you typed Birds Australia Parrot Association , you would have already typed Birds Australia!}} LibStar (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the page be redirected not to Birds Australia but to Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, since Birds Australia is a redirect itself. Maias (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG, hardly any coverage [51], article has been existence for a few years and I'm guessing hasn't been improved due to lack of third party sources. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to PROD when I noticed that it was already PRODded/contested. NN local family, I found only two Gsearch hits in English for this spelling, one to Youtube and one LinkedIn, nothing on Gbooks or Gnews either. No refs within the article. Delete -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to International Tamil Film Awards. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Bdb484 (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @746 · 16:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Bdb484 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Bdb484 (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the filmmaker of this movie. The title is mentioned in articles (not only in the English site, but also in other languages) of one of the cast members and that is the reason that motivated me to make a Wikipedia article. I have not expanded much on the article out of modesty, as I hope it will be fans of my film and of this actor (Tim Rozon) who will later add information. Also, I would feel a bit uncomfortable if there was too much information, as I don't think my movies deserve long articles, but they definitely deserve something. Feel free to edit the information (such as the links to Canadian film festivals), but I think it is extremely pretentious from your part to determine that my work is not notable. I have dedicated my whole life to make movies and even if you judge that they are small, they are the product of an unbeatable passion that hopefully will be more fruitful in years to come. If you think this article requires some specific additions right away in order to be considered a more relevant source of information, then just tell me what you need and I will add it. Be constructive, not destructive. Finally, have you even seen my film before considering it non-notable? You are certainly invited and welcome to watch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmforever (talk • contribs) 06:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| ||||||
The result was delete. The delete votes are more substantial and are backed by policy \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
moved from MfD Bduke (Discussion) 01:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Consensus is to delete the article as written on Idera Software as there is no clear demonstration of notability of that company. However, there is no prejudice against the creation of an article on the parent company, BBS Technologies, provided notability is proved with reliable sources (not press releases as noted in Wikipedia:CORP) SilkTork *YES! 23:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spam from a COI editor. No evidence this passes WP:CORP Triplestop x3 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that WP:ATHLETE is not binding, and that there are other indicators of notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hasn't played professionally, fails WP:ATHLETE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep one of the best players on college football with a future potencial career at the NFL--Zta ♠talk♠ July 21 2009 ♠Nastia '♠
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE--Yankees10 01:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, unsourced, repeated info already found in Alcazar discography. Fails WP:NOT#IINFO - eo (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please conduct discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand FA Cup 2009 Qualifying Round. Part of a set of noms. Shadowjams (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. While the article has been expanded and referenced since it was nominated, this does not render prior votes, which cited notability concerns, useless. However, it is fairly clear that there is no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
simply recognising Kosovo has been done by many countries and covered in International recognition of Kosovo. I'm also not entirely sure this bribery incident is enough to make a stand alone article. it could be covered in Wikinews or Foreign relations of Maldives. there is very limited coverage besides this issue. [53]. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ Admin reviewing this proposed AFD Please note and take into consideration that this article has been significantly updated since this AFD was originally proposed, regards Ijanderson (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources provided to support notability. Ghits are either promotional, trivial, or reports of his death. No in depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- 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 as a content fork and licensing violation of Amin Saigol and recreated as a redirect. No prejudice against nomination of that article, but with the correct spelling notability may be easier to verify. See, for example, [55]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sahgals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is a stub, cites no sources, has not been edited in quite some time and for the most part only contains red links. Does not seem notable per WP:BIO as I have been unable to locate any external information on this family Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while being a stub and "not being edited in a while" don't seem like valid arguments, after doing about 15 minutes of research via Google I can find no references to assert notability or that they even exist. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find any sources. Fails WP:N. Possibly a WP:HOAX. Iowateen (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NWikireader41 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: but use alternative spelling "Saigol". I have verified that this is a major industrial family in Pakistan. See for example
- http://dailymailnews.com/dmsp0204/dm001.html
- The idea of Pakistan,Stephen P. Cohen, Publisher Brookings Institution Press, 2004
Spelling Sehgal is valid for the Khatri clanname, but the family has used spelling "Saigol".
--Malaiya (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] - 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 keep. the wub "?!" 11:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Balikpapan Gulf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
fails Wikipedia:Notability Davidelit (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 15:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Balikpapan.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Gulf is a separate entity from the city, and is significant in many respects; the article has potential for expansion. Chzz ► 01:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Geographic feature that needs cleanup and some geo coordinates, but large geographic features are an encyclopedia's bread and butter. There is little room to game a geographic feature (unlike your local garage band). I'll add coords, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. There is no strong consensus for deletion of either articles. Editorial decisions, such as merging/redirecting, should be discussed elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a minor plot point in the Preacher comic series. It has no chance for expansion, and anything important is already included within the main article. TTN (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I am also nominating an another minor plot point that cannot be properly expanded into an article that asserts independent notability:
Merge for Salvation. Locations, on the other hand, are elements which sometimes can be appropriately separated, and where in particular a list of locations can be helpful in understandng an article. But for this article, it's probably not long enough for that. DGG (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @745 · 16:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty blatant advertising for obscure embedded Linux distro. I don't see any coverage of this anywhere, or evidence that it's notable in any way. —Chowbok ☠ 18:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
This game was never published or critically reviewed. The most that could possibly dug up for it would be reviews from websites dealing specifically in homebrew games, which would not generally be considered important or reliable sources. TTN (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- 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. the wub "?!" 11:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Porter (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band. Clearly they have a following, as indicated by the number of editors who have had a hand in this article, but they really don't meet notability requirements. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 15:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick visit to the article on the Spanish Wikipedia was all it took to find one relevant newspaper source, and with some more searching it becomes apparent that this band has had coverage in many major Mexican newspapers. I've added a few sources just now. Keep, since the subject meets WP:BAND criterion #1, or the general notability guideline. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as those many editors, including Paul Erik, have demonstrated that the group passes WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Paul Erik. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As Paul Erik points out, Spanish language sources establish the notability of the band. There's no reason to discriminate between something notable in Hispanic countries and the USA.--Pink Bull (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 | Talk 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a thinly-veiled promotional attempt in violation of WP:SOAP, consisting wholly of assertions not supported (and largely unsupportable to V and RS standards. Author appears to be creating a number of very similar articles (such as Financial gaming, also a present candidate for deletion) for the apparent purpose of promoting related websites. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local restaurant. No reliable sources, no indication whatsoever what would make this restaurant notable. Crusio (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trading competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a thinly-veiled promotional attempt in violation of WP:SOAP, consisting wholly of assertions not supported (and largely unsupportable to V and RS standards. Author appears to be creating a number of very similar articles (such as Financial gaming, also a present candidate for deletion) for the apparent purpose of promoting related websites. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Financial gaming, although the to and from of such a merge is unclear. Wikify and chop out the filler and external links to commercial sites. The subject is a common enough occurance that it should be possible to find sources in the process of merging. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or speedy. Essentially the same content as Financial games (AfD discussion), Financial gaming (AfD discussion), Trading games (AfD discussion). —Korath (Talk) 20:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Financial betting seems to be the currently-least-objectionable article in this walled garden (though I've been fooled before), so maybe redirect there. —Korath (Talk)
- 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable track. Prod was removed with comment that there are 4470 Google results. There are indeed many Ghits for a search on Gopher Dunes. However, a search for "Gopher Dunes" Norfolk renders only 65 Ghits, none more notable than YouTube or local websites describing local attractions. No reliable sources, no indication of notability. Crusio (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- 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. Conceded this discusion generated little input, but no request for keep. Consensus for deletion. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kevan Ohtsji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable person. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Most listed rolls are ridiculously minor and entirely unsourced - just taken from IMDB and a Wikia. Found one or two interviews with him, but not enough to be the significant coverage needed to meet WP:N or WP:BIO. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ENT Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability guidelines Chzz ► 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.