Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 7
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jiri Svoboda (talk | contribs) at 11:30, 7 August 2009 (Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VeritOS]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unnotable. The only 'source' is the home page, which has not been modified since 2006 according to HTTP header, and contains nothing except the notice 'The site is down for repairs and updating.' I did not find a way to download the software or did not find any references to it via google except the defunct home page, this article and a similar entry at allexperts.com. Jiri Svoboda (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Skomorokh 23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable apartment buildings. News articles in Chinese turn out to all be police blotter type stories. Abductive (reasoning) 11:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion about this topic and what we should do about the related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. Please feel free to add your comments! olivier (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep - the article meets WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Australian geophysicist; I don't see any assertion of notability per WP:BIO in the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Skomorokh 13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organisation. All Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors or self-published. Notability tag removed with terse claim of third party sources, but no third party sources were added. Article "written" in the peculiar gobbledygook found at the interface of academia and government, by people with a clear COI. Abductive (reasoning) 08:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep Nomination appears to be confused between "interesting" and "notable" (according to strict WP:N). Whilst I cheerfully agree on the first and certainly the point about "peculiar gobbledygook found at the interface of academia and government", neither of these give us cause to doubt WP:N. This organisation is part of the EU-funded squillion-euro Seventh Framework Programme and has a vast footprint in the world of the eurocrats (a smaller but still notable one in SemWeb geekery). If this isn't obviously and immediately clear from the article itself, then that's a problem, but it's a WP:SOFIXIT not a WP:AFD. The sources are all there on Seventh Framework Programme and if someone sees their absence on this specific page as reason to delete for lack of WP:RS, then I guess muggins needs to do the copyediting as necessary. Really though, how about editors being smart enough to read around and understand the difference between less than perfect articles and non-notable topics. We've got bigger glitches to worry more about before this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had half a mind to speedy this, as it doesn't seem to even assert notability, let alone establish it, but in an effort to not WP:BITE the new user who contributed this and another article which I did speedy, this is coming here by way of also skipping the formality of PROD. A whopping 246 ghits, which seem to all be either self-sources or something else entirely that shares the name "Pill Hill Press." No indication of any notability. Nosleep break my slumber 08:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
|
The result was Speedy Delete per A7, with a pinch of salt added. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any second party sources for this guy, although Google does turn up lots of spammy stuff. Can't verify the significance of the contest that he claimed to have won, the book he claimed to have published, or the claim of being a "renowned astrologer." Sixtysixstar (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:EXIST. There are no sources which attest to this subject's notabilty. So far, this article is but a directory listing. Without sources, it is likely to remain so. Move to delete. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Public housing in Hong Kong. I have started a discussion about this topic and what we should do about the related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. Please feel free to add your comments! olivier (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC) this comment reformatted by Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep pending the outcome of the broader discussion about public housing in Hong Kong. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am from Hong Kong, but I am not the creator of this article. Wah Ming Estate is a large and famous public housing estate in Northern New Territories, Hong Kong. In fact, no public housing estate articles needs to be deleted except that such estates do not really exist. However, the format of Wah Ming Estate article is not the same as "standard" wikipedia format. The format may need to be changed soon. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Commment: I think someone may have political aims to remove the articles which are not from Western countries, by using certain leaks of the articles to delete them. I hope I am too sensitive to see this phenomenon, although this always happens in English Wikipedia. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this as speedy A7, tag was removed by someone other than the creator, so I'm bringing it here. Self-published author seems to fall far short of WP:N Deville (Talk) 06:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I declined an A1 CSD on this article. Non-notable neologism. The only two sources I found were an opinion piece and a press release. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was No consensus. Opinion on whether Ms. Hamilton meets WP:BIO standards is split, with a slight favoring to Keep the article. The article's supporters are invited to strengthen the references for the article, while its opponents are welcome to revisit the AfD later in the year if no effort has been made to improve its contents and references. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed Prod, subject doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO notability criteria. Gasta220 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable adult film star. While Chandler certainly has a large body of work, her notability is not substantiated through third-party reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Ace Combat X: Skies of Deception. (If you think the redirect should be deleted, feel free to nominate it at RfD.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe exposition about a fictional country that appeared in one video game. The content in the article isn't even worth merging to Ace Combat X because it has no bearing on the plot and fails several of the points under WP:GAMECRUFT. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Copernic. I'm not entirely sure I've chosen the correct target article, so this should be worked out on a relevant talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only "sources" are online software reviews (I'm assuming solicited reviews?) and the company's own websites. WP:PRODUCT says "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy". This company does not meet that standard. The article was written by someone who apparently works for the company. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copernic Desktop Search. B (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left this one alone for quite a while hoping the tags would be addressed. The subject has a significant amount of published work but it does not appear to be at all covered outside of his small field. It is very much a resume and has no third party sourcing and appears to be an auto-bio. Beach drifter (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @239 · 04:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable technique by one artist. There are no sources and google searches reveal zero hits, other than wikipedia and mirrors. Note that the article on the artist is also up for deletion. freshacconci talktalk 03:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Note that the article on the artist is also up for deletion," says Freshacconci ---who seems to be partly responsible for the proposed artist deletion if I'm reading the article history right. Please see the discussion about deleting the artist Terry Ward. Keep. Cramyourspam (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)cramyourspam[reply]
|
This AfD has been closed as Speedy delete all - A3 hoax. --Michael Greiner 00:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax. Early Life section is a modified version of Lil Waynes Early Life section. Album articles are modified versions of other articles. Luv Swangz of True Story (BGz album) and Diary of Souljia of Too Hood to Be Hollywood. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da Block Burnaz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V.L. Boys and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung Ent. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I am also nominating the following related pages, the two album articles and a collegue of Lil Brotha with a similar modified version of of Lil Waynes Early Life section:
Also My Gurl A Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Lil Brotha single, modified version of For a Minute. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All that I can find is trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy Delete as Hoax. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax. Is a modified version of Chopper City Records. The reference does not mention Yung Ent but does mention Chopper City Records and the title has been changed. Article suggests they started in 2009 and relocated after a 2005 hurricane. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da Block Burnaz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V.L. Boys Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy Delete as Hoax. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax. Is a modified version of Chopper City Boyz. The Billboard refernce (does not work for me but here is an alternative link) does not mention V.L. Boys but does mention Chopper City Boyz. The other link does not work for me but has the same path as on the Chopper City Boyz article but with a different title. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da Block Burnaz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung Ent Duffbeerforme (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy Delete as Hoax. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax. Is a modified version of Chopper City Boyz. The Billboard refernce (does not work for me but here is an alternative link) does not mention Da Block Burnaz but does mention Chopper City Boyz. The other link does not work for me but has the same path as on the Chopper City Boyz article but with a different title. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V.L. Boys and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung Ent. (There is an older band called Da Block Burnaz or Block Burnaz, see this, with different members and different releases). Duffbeerforme (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete on Wheels! this disambig page title is neologism and Willy on wheels page move vandals' target list. Nosmle (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod, created by and only major contributor has COI. Lacks 3rd party references demonstrating notability. RadioFan (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Assassin's Creed. Since it's already been merged, deletion is not possible per WP:MAD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested. Unreleased cancelled novel, not enough sources to develop the article further. I propose to either delete or merge info Assassin's Creed --> RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism 01:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep. Notability has been established and the arguments for deletion have been refuted. NAC—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
There is no indication that this method of teaching is notable. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a textbook. ÷seresin 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @239 · 04:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Nothing but a list of appearances, not a single source beyond knowyourmeme.com which doesn't look notable. Source 2 doesn't even mention it. Last AFD was no consensus due to a flood of "but it's notable, I like it, it's cool, blah blah blah" by people who don't understand the meaning of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Last AFD closed as no consensus for lack of !votes; only "keep" was an "It's notable" !vote. No sources found, article has been a stub forever, clearly fails WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main concerns here are that the article is trivial and that Wikipedia is not a memorial. The person/case only seems notable for the fact that it took so long to find somebody who's body was so close to their place of residence and this does not pass WP:BIO/WP:N (whichever you chose to apply). Yes, there is coverage by reliable sources, but trivial news pieces attract this sort of attention all of the time (see here) and we need to use common sense. [WP:N/CA]] says: "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope". An amusing read, but now worth a Wikipedia article - possible merge with Lothian and Borders Police if the closing nominator feels necessary. DJ 01:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hairhorn's prod was contested. The reason that Hairhorn gave was "Non-notable neologism". Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was removed. This film fails WP:NF and is obviously self-promotion (look at the username of the page's creator). POKERdance talk/contribs 00:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Tone 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Long-orphaned, minimally-edited article created by her grandson. Fails V, N, and OR. Assumes inherited notability as well, and even the Guinness entry is dubious - at the least, it was subsequently withdrawn from their records, probably with good cause. Another editor's more copious research into the notability (or lack thereof) can be found on the article's talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated with: Miranda and Gideon were litigants in two very famous and notable cases, Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright, but it's the cases bearing their names that are notable, not (without more) the litigants themselves. As WP:NRVE explains, the "notability of a parent topic ... is not inherited by subordinate topics," and WP:SINGLEEVENT makes clear that a separate article would only be warranted if they had done something else that makes them notable. Put another way, for these litigants to merit inclusion, they would have to be sufficiently notable to have an article even if the cases bearing their names didn't exist. Otherwise, they should be handled in our article on the case, and there only to the extent relevant to the case. Neither of these articles meet that standard. They are a tailored fit for WP:SINGLEEVENT. I propose deletion or, in the alternative, merge and redirect to Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright respectively. Lastly, George W. Bush was a litigant in a famous and notable case, but if that was his sole claim to notability, we would not have an article on him; John Terry was a litigant in another famous and notable Warren Court criminal procedure case, but we don't have an article on him. Anyone remember the names of the named plaintiffs in Brown v. Board? Not only do we not have a separate article on them, our article on the case doesn't even name them. I realize that not many editors share my disagreement with WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I mention this for those who do. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Though many of the keep votes are a bit lacking, there is quite clearly no consensus for deletion. Editorial decisions should be discussed at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a minor spin-off "series" that is already covered within the fourth paragraph of Ultima (series)#Overview. There is no actual content here anyway, especially due to the fact that there are only two actual games within it. TTN (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep, there is consensus that this individual passes notability guidelines. JamieS93 be kind to newcomers 19:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable Person Patchy1Talk To Me! 05:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Former minor league baseball player, no longer active, no particular reason to consider him notable. Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a "let's delete all former minor league pro ballplayers" policy? If so, I guess it has to go, but if not I would keep it. Why destroy good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article serves as much importance as K-7 Bridge, 222nd Street Bridge and the Interstate 70 Bridges. Plus, it expands the Crossings of the Kansas River category. Bhall87 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that the article lacks sufficient real-world notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A plot device from a soap opera. Unreferenced with no real world importance. Magioladitis (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A user contested the prod. All that I can find is trivial mentions of him in articles that are about the company. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Strong Delete - if properly formatted, this article would be nothing more than a list.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a psychologist. Claims notability based on television appearances; however, I can't find any external sources confirming this, and the person's own site refers in a vague way to Sky TV, specifically Psychic TV which does not look like something that would make the subject notable. The external sites used as references are not all about the same person - the first site belongs to a female therapist called Jules Williams, in Nottingham, and the second site to a male therapist by the same name, in London (and he appears to be the one the article is about) ; the third site advertises him as well. Neither of the references qualifies as a reliable source as they are all advertisements. The article's author created two articles about Williams' methods and concepts, both of which were deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intuitive Counselling. I believe there may be some COI here, and in any case I find no evidence of notability. bonadea contributions talk 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @240 · 04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article is non-notable future North America, and the title of the article is likely to cause confusion with a lot of other terms that begin with the same characters. Abductive (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @240 · 04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
As far as I can see this is the first, not the second, nomination for deletion of this article. __meco (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|