Total number of articles up for deletion review on 08NOV09 @ 07:59:19 UTC: 35
Contents
- 1 How to avoid common mistakes in accounting exam?
- 2 Meaning of life (in five pages)
- 3 New Nazism
- 4 Ronald "Ramsey" Ramsey
- 5 100% Fantasy RPG
- 6 Cromagnon (band)
- 7 Twice exceptional
- 8 Magibon
- 9 Dragon Court
- 10 Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
- 11 Rhythm of Melody
- 12 Tales From The Acoustic Planet, Vol. 3: Africa Sessions
- 13 Jeremy Parzen
- 14 Morphyre
- 15 Variety Child Learning Center
- 16 Frank K. Wheaton
- 17 Key West High School Alternative Energy Program
- 18 Steve Murdoch
- 19 W. L. Shurtleff
- 20 Colleen Cassady St. Clair
- 21 Youville Drive
- 22 Mass killings under Communist regimes
- 23 Victor I. Petrik
- 24 Cisco Network Analysis Module
- 25 Project Analyzer
- 26 Dan Youra
- 27 Bidu Sayão International Vocal Competition
- 28 Vienna (feed reader)
- 29 Lilian Edwards
- 30 Profane Genocidal Creations
- 31 Esmaiel Jabbari
- 32 Klíče na neděli
- 33 James F. Howard, Jr.
- 34 Vichy liberalism
- 35 ACS Chemical Neuroscience
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 17:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a collection of how-to guides. No sources, original research. So, delete per WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:OR. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I was tempted to zap this invoking WP:SNOW but I will do the proper thing. Unencyclopedic. Original research. Etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 17:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Classic case of WP:NFT. No sources or anything else that would assert notability. Delete per WP:N, WP:V and most likely WP:OR. I couldn't find a speedy category that would fit. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite 00:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article:
I see one real source and a lot of advertising. One source does not satisfy multiple non-trivial reliable sources for WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite 00:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Contested PROD. I was not able to come up with any reliable sources for this allegedly free RPG, so I fail to see the notablity of it. ArcAngel (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep, no !votes for deletion apart from nom. (non-admin closure) @Kate (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article:
Notability concerns-- #163/200 songs of the 60s on a low-volume music site. All references given are just to generic database pages; One link to an album review is a review for a different band. WP:MUSIC #5 is NOT met; go to the official ESP-Disk Wiki page or website and it clearly lists one album ever released on their label (requirement 2+). Even if that can be excused or avoided, #5 alone with zero other notability hints I can't accept. Guideline reads "may be notable if...", it's not automatic. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
keep - i added a reference to julian cope discussing them which anyone who cared to google could easily find. i think this band is clearly notable and don't understand why this is being renominated, as apparently in the first nomination there was only one delete vote, who was the person who nominated it. Aisha9152 (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a sock. Nothing to do here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:No Original research, seems like this article is just simply promoting it without any reliable sources. I know many people whose social skills are weak and are very bright. They still are functioning in society. No special programs needed. We have enough labeling of people as it is. Begin to tolerate of people's individual differences. That's the solution, not labeling their quirks. Xqe (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Please note that the only thing that matters when keeping an article or not is whether the article meets the notability criteria (for most cases). Notability is not temporary, nor is it dependent on the number of hits per day the article gets or the how many internal links the article has. NW (Talk) 17:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article:
Procedural nomination, to assist user who was unable to complete nomination,for which they gave the following reasons in the edit summary: "Not a notable subject. Not even her name can be confirmed." UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was redirect to History of China. Black Kite 00:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article:
Previously deleted via AFD in 2006 and prodded in June 2007 with the concern: "Article does not explain how this game might be notable (WP:N), or provide any independent references (WP:V), and is almost entirely game guide material (WP:NOT)". Concerns raised in prod and previous AFD discussion are still valid: the article still consists of game guide and promotional material with no independent sources to establish notability. The only coverage I can find in reliable sources is a mention in a Press of Atlantic City article (link), but it's debatable whether this is sufficient to satisfy WP:N. Muchness (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite 00:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Is not notable as per WP:CORP. The first source in the article is a dead link to the (no longer existent) website of the organization. The second (adherents.com) cites a paper written by the group's founder. This certainly doesn't constitute "significant coverage in secondary sources" as required by WP:CORP. Ferris37 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. article already exists at Melody of Rhythm JForget 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Not notable. Might be better off to merge with artist. Btilm 03:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This article has no signs of notability. Should it be merged with the author? It doesn't even have a track listing. Btilm 02:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Even if it was originally an autobiography, that doesn't necessarily make it deletion worthy. Since nomination, this article now has a neutral POV, and is within Wikipedia guidelines so consensus proves this one is a keeper. Tavix | Talk 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Parzen wrote this article about himself, in violation of WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:SPA. He then went around the project inserting links to his article in a variety of other articles [5]. When he was confronted with his behavior, he did apologize, and requested that the article be deleted [6]. Qworty (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The subject seems to meet wikipedia notability to me. Off2riorob (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Black Kite 00:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
NN internet related tool, fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources, prod removed Delete Secret account 02:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Secret, since I have not received a reply to my comments on the talk page, I am posting here. A note about the proposed deletion: Note that other music visualizations such as Neon (light synthesizer), Milkdrop and NoiseCradle have their own wiki pages which contain a lot less information and do not have valid references, but these have not been suggested for deletion. I would be interested to know why the Morphyre page was singled out in particular rather than these. Of course it may not contain a huge mass of information at the moment that you would expect from a page that has been around for 5 years, but isn't that the idea of a wiki? That others add information to help make an article more complete? (Not that the article gets deleted within a week before anyone is given a chance to add to it). I have contributed anonymously to several mathematics and engineering related articles and think that it is the opportunity for others to help build an article that makes wikipedia so valuable. Morphyre represents an important development in the evolution of music visualizations because of its 3D stereoscopic output and because of the multiplicity of different 3D scenes. It is also being developed separately with the hope of being involved in a project which tries to bring an experience of music to deaf children in schools. It is also one of the few visualizers capable of being run on Macs, Windows, and all the main media players. I have added some references, which as I'm sure you know, is difficult for a purely web-based product. The statistics about the downloads are verified on the Winamp website and the use of TinyJS is also referenced.
The result was speedy keep. Nominator blocked as a sock per CU. No outstanding delete !votes. Nothing to do here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The long standing consensus has been that pre-secondary schools (i.e., primary schools and middle schools) are not notable enough to have their own article. There is no Blue Ribbon for this school. Xqe (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ignoring multivotes from one user, consensus is either 'keep' or 'no consensus'. tedder (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. As for the rest of this, it is mind-numbingly non-notable, including the genealogy and the mundane life history. It's hard to see how anybody could think this meets WP notability standards, despite the references. It's important to remember that verifiability is not the same thing as notability. Qworty (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep I'll agree that his notability is more in the sports area. His sports accomplishments are very significant. Very few sports agents have represented so many top athletes and produced major sporting events for them. He's worked with Michael Jordan, James Worthy and Flo-Jo among others. He's also worked with major entertainment figures such as Marla Gibbs and Milton Berle. Igbo (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Program that doesn't have significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Trivial coverage. The only Google News Result ends up to be a 404. No school article to redirect to. User:Heindrekallen seems to be a WP:SPA. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
sorting/Organizations|list of Organizations-related deletion discussions]]. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 02:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Wind turbines are in use at Key West High School. The first one when up Thursday November 12, 2009. I along with about 200 other band, football, soccer, cheerleader, and cross country students were witness to it. It is not a hoax. Since when do local awards not count? And WHEN is it ever non-notable for students to raise wind turbine at their school? Are you guys crazy? Keep this page. I'm certain the page will develop more as time goes on and the situation develops.
The result was keep. Black Kite 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the notability of the subject has not been demonstrated. There are many historians and scholars out there and this article says nothing of how its subject stands apart from the countless mass of past or present "scholars." I would suggest that the author of this article do a bit more research on his topics before starting articles of dubious value. Torkmann (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Black Kite 00:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
A one sentence article with a photograph of dubious provenance is all this article is. I understand the defendant this man represented was notorious back in 1906, but that does not make his lawyer notable enough for this encyclopaedia. Unless this attorney was known for anything other than this one trial he did, I would regrettfully have to recommend deletion of this fine article. Torkmann (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Fails WP:PROF notability criteria. From what I can tell, she's no more notable than an average university professor. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a neighbourhood street in Edmonton. It is not all that notable. Rufus843 (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Both sides made valid points, and it would be hard to call this anything else. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article (as Communist genocide):
This article is entirely original research that synthesizes unconnected theories about Communist government in different countries not substantiated in any academic literature. It was originally created by banned editor Joklolk. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete I have been following this in the background since it was called Communist Genocide (see box above). Every AfD ended in no consensus with an attached promise to improve the article. As the comments by this AfD's nominator show, that hasn't happened apparently. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 04:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
An article about a self-proclaimed genius with significant WP:BLP and WP:V problems. There does not seem to be any record of his scientific publications or of citations of him that I could find by doing GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks searches, so the subject does not seem to be a traditional WP:ACADEMIC case. Russian Wikipedia does not have an article about him. There do seem to be some Russian newsmedia sources but they are very confused and contradictory and mostly local rather than national. A GoogleNews search in Russian returns two hits[9]. The first of these hits is an article[10] by a Russian academician Kruglyakov about the dangers of pseudo-science. The article lists Petrik as an example. Here is another article, in an almanach "Lebed'" (Swan):[11]. This article says that Petrik's claim to be a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences did not check out upon verification; it also says that the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (for which Wikipedia does not have an entry) is a kind of a vanity club and not a legitimate academy like the Russian Academy of Sciences. The article provides a lot of other critical info about Petrik such as a claim that he spent several years in prison for some sort of swingling; compares him to Trofim Lysenko, etc. On the other hand, this article [12] in a local St. Petersburg newspaper presents him as the next Einstein. I don't quite know what to make of all this, but, in view of the dearth of solid and reliable information and in view of very significant WP:BLP problems here, I think this entry should be deleted. Kinoq (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Article about a networking product which has no notability, only sources are from Cisco's own website, also the majority of content reads like an advert. QueenCake (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It's really frustrating to see the discussion on this issue. If you plan to delete a product that has 6000 customers and nearly $60m of annual revenue, then a lot of products listings on Wikipedia should be removed. There are a number of non Cisco originated articles on this product - here are a few: Now - as I had mentioned before, if you think there is advertising related content, I am more than happy to try to fix it. Ash1932 (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
However, this auto-reply of "Delete" without even understanding the article reflects very poorly on the admins. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia of "Educating someone" ? Ash1932 (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
i'm sure this deserves a sentence somewhere but we don't need an article on it. get rid of it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The result was delete. Black Kite 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. The general consensus here is that the subject is not adequately notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article:
This article is about a nonnotable businessman that fails WP:BIO as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. The original AfD closed as a keep over a year ago, although I can not see anything more than trivial coverage of this individual. Some passing mention has been made about the lawsuit related to his company, but nothing especially distinguishing regarding his biography. There also seems to be a serious conflict of interest with the creator. ThemFromSpace 23:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't find significant coverage for this singing competition. Joe Chill (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 04:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
PROD contested. Fails WP:PROF. Self-proclaimed "keynote speaker" whose only proof is
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable album, from a band that is most likely also non-notable. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This associate professor at the University of South Carolina has an h-index around 11. Article says he won an award, but I cannot find any evidence that this award even exists. Article mentions that he is in Who's Who. Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Has been listed at WP:PNT for more than 2 weeks with no progress Jarkeld (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article:
Seems to me to fail WP:PROF. h-index is in the low teens, and he is not the first author on the papers with then most citations. The only possible claim under WP:PROF is #5, holding a "distinguished" chair. However, as pointed out in the previous no consensus AfD back in 2006, Dr. Howard has had cared for a Broyhill family member. The family then endowed a professorship named after Dr. Howard at UNC. "At the least, it sounds like more of a "pat on the back" from someone who can afford it (possibly a higher-up of the Broyhill furniture company, which is based in North Carolina?) than a academically-deserved-only title". I tend to agree. Abductive (reasoning) 09:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was Speedy close and send to Redirects for discussion instead. Non-admin closure. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The term was used by a writer in an article. It does not refer to liberals in the Vichy Republic but is a sarcastic reference to American liberals. Not notable. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawn by nominator, WP:SNOW Keep Tim Vickers (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Journal has barely started, no issue published yet. Prod removed with explanation on talk page concerning stature of authors and the fact that one published manuscript has been cited (cf. WP:NOTINHERITED). Journal misses all criteria of WP:Notability (academic journals) and a article creation is very premature (cf. WP:NOTCRYSTAL). Crusio (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
|
