| advertise add site services publishers database health videos | ![]() | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Certification Seminar Friday October 9 - Sunday October 11,... dragondoor.com | and Quality of Life Outcomes | October 2009 - Browse articles hqlo.com | Nutrition & Metabolism | October 2009 - Browse articles nutritionandmetabolism.co... | Molecular Cancer | October 2009 - Browse articles molecular-cancer.com |
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Jonathan Van Voorhees
Such a massive autobio crys out for an AfD. Is he notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There are footnotes to online information. Currently obtaining other sources from public archives such as LSUS library archives. Also researching case numbers on class action suit. How many newspaper mentions are required? Jvanv 08:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
relliable sources added more to come --Jonvanv (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Douglas Baker
This WP:BLP subject claims direct descent from divinity, but so do many, many others. The only absolute claim to notability I can see is the authorship of very many books, and on checking the British Library catalogue I find 80 or so. However, they are published either by 'D. Baker' or by 'Baker Publications', or by Claregate College which the author established. The only source actually cited is his own website and I have not found any other independent sources. Therefore I do not believe the subject is truly notable; in addition there is a matter of controversy over his history. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I personally know Dr Baker better than many, though I have not had anything to do with him and the Claregate college since the late 90's, I'll stand up to vouch for him and his writings. My best friend moved to London late 80's meet and married his wife, who's brother works for Dr Baker. I was first told of Dr Baker through my best friend. then he came out to Australia with Dr Baker on a lecture tour, 1993 I believe...where I sat in on his lectures in Sydney and met him and his other staff. I spent a lot of of time with them all during that lecture series, and I was given numerous books of Dr Baker's to read when they left. Dr Baker came back for a few more lecture tours the following years, 94 and 95, I volunteered to come on tour with them spending upwards of two weeks at a time working and living with Dr Baker and his staff, sharing every meal etc. I came to know the man behind the lecturer that only a hand full of people got to see. Dr Baker always said he is only putting the ancient wisdom into the language of the day, and to study all the great works out there. That I have tried to... I have many many books of what are called the great works by the Theosophical Society written by authors such as Madame H P Blavatsky, Annie Besant, Alice Bailey, C W Leadbeater, J Krishnamurtti, Geoffrey Hodson, Manly P Hall, G De Purucker A E Powell, C Jinarajadasa, Mabel Collins and others such as the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita...... Oh and all of Dr Bakers 100 or so books.... What strikes me having read all these hundreds of book on the one massive subject... is... that no book contradicts any other book.. they all are saying the same thing.... So either it is one huge cover up over hundreds of years, or they are all telling the truth.... I tend to think the latter.. The proof is in your own research. The problem, with comments Dr Baker makes, to the ordinary man on the street is their understanding of what he is actually talking about, They are taken too literally. Dr Baker says he is immortal.... people then think well he'll die soon and that will show us he's not... You need to understand what Dr Baker means by that. Of course he is not talking about his physical body.. he doesn't relate his body as being himself .. it is his spiritual self, his soul, his higher self that is immortal.. and it is that part of him that he recognizes as being HIMSELF. The same about the comment that he is from the divine... we all are.. all our souls are... so he is not excluding everyone else out by saying he is from the divine... he means that we all are a spark of the divine, a spark of God...Like Jesus said, I am the son of God... we all are the son's and daughters of God ... though at that level we are neither male or female. So I say read up to see that what Dr Baker has written is only what has been written about in spiritual texts since man has been able to write, and see truth and collaboration in each and every one of these hundreds of books written... you just have to understand the language they are written in at the time.... you will see the thread of truth in all of them with no contradictions. I cringe at many contemporary writers touted today, I see contradictions in a single book... yet these guys are put on a pedestal and praised for THEIR insight... Dr Baker has never claimed that his writings are his own, but only Ancient Truths passed down from time immoral.... Many of the current day new age authors offer the "easy way" their way, to spiritual unfoldment, people love them and they become very popular because they don't have to do anything for it. But Dr Baker never says it's an easy path, he says it's the hardest thing you'll ever do... hence the main stream so called spiritual people don't follow his handed down teachings, and he is not touted as a main stream author or given great write ups in the main stream commercial spiritual circles, and he'll say so and call authors on some crap they may write, so he is almost feared and revered by many authors. Omnisk8 (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC) — Omnisk8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Founding races from the Malazan Book of the Fallen series
Challenged for being unsourced since June 2009. Does not indicate encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-03t22:09z 22:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Ali's TelefilmsAfDs for this article:
Challenged prod. I believe this is a hoax which borders on but does not cross the line of speedy deletion. There is absolutely nothing on google about this production house, and almost all of the text was coped from Balaji Telefilms, including the list of "productions" when I PRODded. Odd to find not a single google hit for "one of the US top production house." (If anyone thinks it does cross the speedy line, I have no objection.) Barring the production of reliable sources to verify that this isn't somebody something made up, this article should be deleted. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. No consensus to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Preben Damgaard
Marked since August 2009 for being advert, biased, citationstyle, possible COI, colloquial, copyedit, introrewrite, likeresume, orphan, peacock, refimprove, spam, tone, and unencyclopedic. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-03t22:15z 22:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] EdgeERP
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 03:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Tyrone Delano Gilliam, Jr.
Wikipedia is not a true-crimes archive; this is a sordid but in no way unusual murder case. PROD removed by author saying "This was a relatively high profile case at the time", but that is not the same as notability, and this does not meet the standard of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. No consensus to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Caner MalkaraliAfDs for this article:
This is the biography of a purported Turkish author who is studying economics at Vassar. It is essentially a copy of the author's Facebook entry, full of puffery and vanity. For his novel, Ceskin Faik, no ISBN is given and there are no reviews. The publisher's website http://www.iskenderiye.com.tr/ is not presently accessible--the domain registration for iskenderiye.com.tr (Feb, 2008) still exists but there is no name server response. Perhaps the novel was self-published and the publisher's website was a vanity publisher. In short we have no reliable information on this person. And we have no reason to assume that he has done anything of significance except to publish his claim to be an author. --TS 20:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was merge to Mayer Hawthorne. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] A Strange Arrangement
Completing nomination for 98.248.33.198 (talk · contribs), reason provided was:
Pointless. Delete. 76.173.74.250 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Why is this pointless? Its someones album that they released with references. I don't understand how you can call your actions on Wikipedia un-bias. All you are doing is deleting work that is obviously important (and this has a point) to somebody. You are not the only person browsing Wikipedia. I'm sure the article will not get in your precious way. I don't understand you people. Don't you have anything better to do than exercise your tiny ounce of power that Wikipedia gives to ALL users by being an asshole? Independent Music Source (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Open Containers
Coverage seems limited to self-published references and mirrors of Wikipedia. I'd dispute the factual accuracy of some of the claims made in the article, but after all it's the subject that's being evaluated, not the article itself. decltype (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] KAlgebra
The creator contested the prod. I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was merge to Wishbone Ash. Closing as "merge" on the suggestion of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Almighty Blues: London and Beyond
All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Andayil
This article is about a family that does not assert notability. There are no sources in the article aside from a statement that the information comes from the Andayil Temple Trust. As a source, this fails verifiability. My own search turns up no indication of notability for this family, nor any information about the Andayil Temple Trust. Whpq (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. No consensus to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Dominic Patten
The subject's lack of notability has been noted several times in the article's history and on the talk page. Employment history, listings of published articles by, not about Patten and association with user-generated websites as examiner.com do not establish notability, and many of the statements are simply not supported by the references (Gemini nomination, "founding board member" at a nn organization, for example). Flowanda | Talk 09:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Upsilon nu alpha
US intercollegiate fraternity being promoted by someone with an obvious COI. No evidence offered that it exists let alone that it might be notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Reggae Greats: Lee "Scratch" Perry
No proof that this is real and their is no sources Mschilz20 (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Livid Records
Contested PROD. There are no sources in the article indicating notability, and can not find reliable sources that establish notability. ArcAngel (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Harmonyum
Mystical fluff with no sources other than corporate web page and self-published books. I found lots of blog sources but could not find anything reputable. Looie496 (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Hello, I am the author of this article and I have had a very hard time citing it due to the fact that as you say, all of the books are self-published. I have tried writing the article in four different creative ways to make it not sound like an advertisement or like "mystical fluff" as the previous critique states. I have a genuine desire to place this subject on Wikipedia in accordance with the appropriate standards and criteria as it truly is a healing system that exists and that we offer at Universal Force Healing Center. Studies are currently being done but we just don't have medical statements right now. If you have any advice for me on how to better write this or cite this please let me know as I think is definitely noteworthy as it is healing people from various diseases (cancer, tumors, heart problems, bi-polar issues etc). I tried to write the article in such a way so that people knew it hadn't been proved but that it does exist, and I think that is fair and honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.80.25 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] From Newport to the Ancient Empty Streets of L.A
I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe this is quite a famous bootleg. I've tried to improve the content of this article. Mick gold (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] The **** of the Mothers
I found zero sources for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Inapporpate needs to go.--Mschilz20 (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Empyreal Destroyer
Declined speedy; the article makes an assertion of notability. However, per WP:MUSIC I believe this band may fall below the notability bar. They are unsigned, and may have an album coming out at some point (likely a self-published release, though I can't be sure). While the last.fm site doesn't meet WP:RS (being a wiki), it does quote some magazine reviews; whether these constitute non-trivial coverage...? (tbh I haven't chased them up). Note that the last.fm article was also apparently written by the author of this article, and note the name (WP:COI). The other two refs are self-published and also unsuitable. EyeSerenetalk 21:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Im not sure if these will help or not but here you go. http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=80475 http://www.brutalism.com/wb/pages/reviews/reviews-e/empyreal-destroyer.php http://www.heathenharvest.com/article.php?story=20071014062049101&mode=print http://www.live4metal.com/live-28.htm http://www.organart.demon.co.uk/neworgan172.htm http://www.schwermetall.ch/cdkritiken/kritik1714.php Unfirtunately I dont have scans or can find online scans of their appearance in Kerrang!, terrorizer, and metal Hammer, and Zero Tolerance Magazine, though there is evidence of it in numerous musician forums it seems. http://www.metalstormmag.com/modules.php?name=Reviews&rop=showcontent&id=11 That came up on the first 2 pages. Im sure theres more if I sift through more of it. --Cyclonis12 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC) cyclonis12
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur)
Contested PROD, I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent, per general notability guidelines / WP:BIO. Chzz ► 21:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] List of Lego Batman: The Videogame characters
Kinda falls under WP:GAMEGUIDE. Game not really notable enough for a list of characters. If it was part of a notable franchise, (well, it could be considered a franchise along with Lego Star Wars: The Video Game and Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures, but it doens't really work in this case) that might be OK, but not in this instance. Is also pure original research. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Codespring
More or less spam; most of the links are thoroughly commercial, and those that are not merely mention the company of passing. Having notable clients does not automatically make one notable; neither does having a booth at an expo. Oh, and User:Szilagyiz is the creator; guess who's their contact person. Why, Szilágyi Enikő, of course! - Biruitorul Talk 18:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The status of Microsoft Gold Partner should be another good reference: MS Solution Finder. Szilagyiz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC). There will be other notability issues mentioned in the course of the week. --Szilagyiz (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability. I would argue that the Microsoft Gold Partner Certification does not imply notability as seen by the requirements to attain such a status on Microsoft's web site: https://partner.microsoft.com/40013031. Furthermore the article reads more or less like an advertisement. Also possible COI issue as noted by nom. --Aka042 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] NeoCube
A non-notable toy made of a bunch of magnetic balls. While it looks kind of neat, the article has severe issues with spaminess (includes a handy pricing section) and appears to fall under the Wikipedia is not for things you just invented rule. Also, there's no real demonstration of notability (youtube and a brief mention on gizmodo don't count in my opinion), nor could I find any reliable sources via google. Bfigura (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Chartjackers
Seems to be "sourced" to press releases, YouTube and Twitter; fails WP:V Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
TOSSERS DON'T YOU CARE FOR KIDS BASTERDS
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Worvine Acadamy
Unsourced and probably misspelled (Worvine Academy). Nothing beyond what could be covered on Maya and Miguel. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Women_Without_Borders#SAVE_campaign. Redirecting to the parent organization for now. The consensus is that at this time the subject is not independently notable. If this changes in the future then the article can be restored. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Sisters Against Violent Extremism
Contested prod. Not seeing significant coverage where this group is the subject of the article. Google News produces only a single article. Included references are largely to youtube videos produced by parent group Women without Boarders. Other references appear to be blogs, or ones where this organization is not the subject of the article. Not seeing how this might meet notability guidelines. The parent organization might however. RadioFan (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Any chance you could link to the specific references you have here, in the deletion discussion? --Odie5533 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Hamed Minhaj
Formerly a PROD, which was then deleted and then restored as contested per a talk page appeal. No evidence of notability from multiple, non-trivial reliable sources. There are claims of mentions in newspapers, but these have not been sourced, despite giving the author a reasonable amount of time to find these. For being so notable, very few third party sources about his company can be found; not even the usual press release-type material seems to exist anywhere other than on the site. I took this to indicate a possible WP:HOAX, but your mileage may vary. --Kinu t/c 01:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not need to create a hoax or waste my time or anyone else. i am writing to help by covering people from countries that don't get attention from everyone. these people are notable and have done alot of good work. i don't claim to have the newspapers. I DO HAVE THEM. i will be more then glad to email or upload to you guys for checking or anything that you guys see fit. Please do not delete something that i have worked hard on it. as i have mentioned that i am willing to provide more info for you guys. i have the documents from afghanitan investment commission which clearly states this companies investment and works. please advice where do i load them. as i have mention they are hard copies. Please kindly do not treat every country like developed countries where all the news and stuff is avaiable online. please do help me and guide to the right direction. 2 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
maybe the way i wrote is not perfect, it may need touch up to get it acceptable to wikipedia standards. i will name few of the points for you 1) His company is the first malaysian company to invest in Afghanistan according to kabul weekly newspaper and afghanistan times. 2) His foundation is a very active in the country. providing for the poor and orphanage around the country which is also been covered in kabul weekly newspaper. 3) This is the second company to secure the edible refinery license in the afghanistan and upon completion making it the biggest. 4) after my full research he is only 25 years old. he start at the age of 16. at a such a young age he has achived so much again covered in kabul weekly. 5) actively promoting afghanistan to international companies. 6) currently in talks with major banks from malaysia to joint venture in afghanistan according to companies press release and story covered by afghanistan papers 7) Owns 7 soccer teams in afghanistan and one of the main sponsor of the sport in afghanistan. this covered in tv's in aghanistan upon his company sponoring the soccer teams. there is alot more about this person and his work. i am very sure he is a full notable person. kindly rest assured i have done my home work and have done a full research on Hamed Minhaj and his compaines before i wrote this article. i have all the hard copies with me. 02/10/09 mike6565 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
As requested kindly find the following: 1) Kabul Weekly news paper No. 356 on 27 May 2009, Front page tile.YOUNG, AMBITIOUS, ENTREPRENEUR AND ROLE MODEL TO HIS GENERATION. 2) Me & You weekly on saturday 7/03/2009 front page 3) Me & You weekly on 14/03/2009 front page 4) Kabul weekly on 11/02/2009 page 3 under report. tile Wamata Corporation, Malaysia Joint Venture With Local Afghan's Expertise Spearheading Investment and Construction Projects in Afghanistan. 5) Afghanistan times on 11/02/2009 front page Wamata corporation speardeading investemtent in afghanitan 6) Shba Daza Magazine page 23 7)Copies license and investment document of the edible oil refinery from ASIA ( Afghanistan investment commission) 8) copies of License from ASIA for wamata corpoation
I have all the hard copies. mike6565 03/10/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
mike6565- 10-10-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
why would you say it is not notable. i have read the rules for notable on wikipedia, it say if the person is covered in a third party publication then it can be consider notable. this person is cover in above newspapers and magazine. i have provide you with the full list, with dates, and numbers. so i am sure that this person is notable. and has done a lot work at his young age. Please explain your reason, then simply saying delete or not notable. i am sure that everyone here is trying to help and expand the Wikipedia with the right information. thank you mike6565- 10-10-2009- 4:39 AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
mike6565-10-101-2009. 4:53 AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If you guys want i can mail the hard copies i have. kabul weekly online is not working, you can check yourself. i have the hard copies of these newspapers. it is not one to say he was merely mentioned. if you look at the list i provided, it has all the papers with date, number, pages and articles. if i could be any more help, please feel free to ask. mike6565-10-10-09, 8:10 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
ok, Thank you Jolenine, --Mike6565 (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Jon CJ Graham
No apparent notability KenWalker | Talk 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: 1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc. While the sources found may not be CNN or MSNBC, he is an entertainer, and falls in the WP:BIO in the imboldened statement. You continuinly say that fans don't matter, yet that's exactly how he falls in WP:BIO. Fred fell in this way, so does Graham. The Edit Corrector (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Ganfyd
I couldn't find any reliable sources to support this article. Also, being a website, it doesn't meet the recommendations at WP:WEB. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Aerosmith's fifteenth studio albumAfDs for this article:
While this would at first appear to be a subversion of WP:HAMMER, a closer inspection shows that almost none of the information pertains to the actual album. Most of it refers to the album only in vague passing or not at all. Last AFD resulted in keep due to sources, but see previous sentences. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was Delete. There's no point in transwikiing, since Wiktionary already has an entry for copacetic, and the information in this article is too encyclopedic for inclusion there. I'll move Copacetic (album) to Copacetic, and redirect Copasetic there. +Angr 06:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] CopaseticAfDs for this article:
Article is about the word, and contains a definition of the word, and the etymology of the word, and nothing more, and (it seems to me) has no prospect of being anything more here. An article exists in Wiktionary, which frankly isn't as good, but that's not the wikipedia's problem.
Because of the poor wiktionary entry I'm calling for Transwiki - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Ben Kudjodji
Although this player technically meets WP:ATHLETE (as he has played in a fully-pro league), his entire professional career consists of one measly minute. I feel that playing one minute in a professional league shouldn't be enough to become notable, especially because players who have made multiple appearances in semi-pro leagues have been repeatedly deemed non-notable. Kudjodji has done nothing of sporting note since his sole minute, and he lacks any media attention to show he is notable some other way. GiantSnowman 19:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Boomz
Unsourced neologism; Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. PROD removed by IP. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 by Christopher Parham. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Timonia
Contested PROD.
A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Local IQ
Local free sheet - Not notable noq (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was deleted (CSD A7) by Graeme Bartlett. NAC. Cliff smith talk 20:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Andrew Thorpe-AppsAfDs for this article:
notability asserted, so misses CSD A7 - student journalist, the height of whose career thus far is a newspaper I can't find evidence of (searching for only turns up a council document from 2006), now author of a web campaign to be elected London mayor massively misses WP:POLITICIAN. Searching online reveals no indication of meeting GNG Prod removed by article author. Saalstin (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was merge to Semen. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Spermophagia
In a nutshell, this article is a combination of Original Research and Synthesis. For starters, the very definition of the term cannot be proven--because the term is not accepted. See this, for instance: only two of the hits seem related to the present topic. The first relevant hit is in a publication called Excerpta medica, Volume 3, from which we only get a snippet. The second, Kama bhog: foods of love, is a book in which the term occurs once, and this book is hardly by a well-known publisher in the field of sexuality, biology, or anthropology. The second, from Sex and drugs, is even less reputable. (The author of this article never saw fit to find or included these references.) All other hits are related to the biological term, and refers to plants, gnats, and such; Google Scholar offers nothing. Certainly a noteworthy term, supposedly employed in the various fields claimed in the lead, would have been better-known. The Oxford English Dictionary, for instance, doesn't list it either. The article used to be called Seminophagia, a term invented by its author--there are no hits for such a term; it does not exist in any real sense. The article itself is a mixture of strange references pulled from all over the place. We find (or found, in earlier versions) pseudo-scientific references to the benefit of swallowing sperm for dental health, for musco-skeletal support, etc. There are very few references here that pass muster (I cleaned them up once or twice; the article's main editor reinstated them). One of the articles that this editor keeps reinserting might pass muster: I present to you "Semen acts as an anti-depressant"--I have pointed out many times to the editor that this article discusses the vaginal 'consumption' of semen, not its swallowing (an essentially oral activity). While I don't wish to essentialize the difference between the vagina and the mouth, they seem sufficiently different at least in an accepted biological sense. Without wanting to prejudge your response, I wish to point your attention to the recently introduced "In popular culture" section, which points to Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle, a delightful comedy, as exemplifying spermophagia. It does not, of course, but it is typical of the way in which this article attempts to make every reference to swallowing semen count. To summarize: a non-existing (or barely existing term) term is beefed up by unreliable references that cannot even establish what the article is about. If there is anything to this thing at all, it is to be found in the second paragraph of the "Cultural practices" section--but this is already found in the Semen article, with a better reference than the Getting It webzine. In fact, a lot of the material in the present article has been or is also found in Semen--to some extent one might call Spermophagia a POV fork, of a very particular POV. I apologize for this lengthy statement; I foresee strong responses and wanted to be as complete as I could here, even without digging up the long discussions on various talk pages and the move from Seminophagia to Spermophagia--this is to be found in the article history and the various talk pages, incl. the deletion by the main editor of a "merge" proposal which, it is granted, wasn't making much headway. I propose delete, not merge, since I propose that whatever is valuable in this article is duplicate information. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Because the name of this article was changed to "semen ingestion," reverted, and then switched to yet a third title, some of its history was not retained and so not all of its authors have yet been notified of this debate, including its creator (NOT me, as has been assumed). This history should somehow be restored and earlier contributors informed. All the wikilinks still read "seminophagia," its original and proper name. This title should be restored simply because it relates to the semen article and not to the sperm article. Additionally, it is impossible to swallow sperm without also swallowing semen, so in the strictest sense "spermophagia" is a practical impossibility and at the very least is a term of incomplete description. Also, not all of the properties of semen referred to in the article are contained in sperm itself. This article cannot properly be merged into "semen" because a big ruckus was made about it being called "spermophagia" rather than "seminophagia," a linguistically proper term, whether neologism or not. (Google recognizes it, correcting the inaccurate 'semenophagia' spelling.) So if it must be moved anywhere, the "sperm" article is the only place left for "SPERMophagia." This article certainly relates to fellatio, but cannot be merged there either because to do so is to deny the existence of felching and also ignores other ways that semen is sometimes consumed, such as after masturbation. Just because some may find the subject matter "distasteful" (pun intended!) is certainly not grounds to eliminate an article entirely, as if the subject did not even exist. There is a strong undercurrent by a small group with a vendetta against this topic (and its related subject matter) who are apparently highly averse to performing this act and so are sarcastically disdainful of those who advocate it. There are 3 million other articles to choose from, and surely they could and should find something else to read. This page is basically just about a very popular sexual fetish, of which scores of other such pages exist. But the medically verifiable content of this article is both astonishing and radically significant, attributing to it far greater validity. Although it has yet more potential for development, I believe we have a comprehensive analysis of the subject, as medical research now stands. When an article typically garners 4000-5500 hits in a single day, that fact alone would surely in most people's minds provide more than ample justification for its existence! That actually places it into the top 1-2% of all articles on Wikipedia! The compelling interest clearly far outweighs the repulsion of a few, even if that were the criteria. This article is a work in progress. If some of the references are poor then let's upgrade them, not tear down someone else's efforts and arbitrarily delete entire sections. Contribute and improve instead of detract and undermine! A poorly referenced statement does not equal a false statement. While blaming it on synthesis or O.R., what seems to have actually drawn the most ire is the research that is clinically proven, referenced and verifiable.JGabbard (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Superior Walls of America
This article is an advertisement for Superior Walls of America and is not otherwise notable. Should be considered WP:Spam and deleted. I placed a speedy deletion template on the page, but it was quickly deleted by another editor. CobraGeek The Geek 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Apache Stone
The result was Speedy Delete per G11 by DGG. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Citizen Sponsored Health Care Reform Bill
Personal essay; Violates WP:OR mhking (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Tokbox
Promotion for non-notable startup. Haakon (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Perennial candidate
This article appears to consist of original research. Although many sources use the term "perennial candidate", I have not been able to find any substantial reliable sources that describe or discuss the concept itself. The list of "famous perennial candidates", which takes up all but the first paragraph of the article, is a hopeless mishmash. Respected statesmen who ran serious but unsuccessful Presidential campaigns (such as Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan) are lumped in with fringe candidates like Pat Paulsen and Lyndon LaRouche who never had a chance, and in many cases never even broke 1 percent in the vote. Therefore, most of this article consists of an indiscriminate list. Unless someone can find some reliable sources describing the concept itself, not just saying that person X or person Y is a "perennial candidate", the article should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 14:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Any editorial issues fall outside the scope of this AfD, so while the article does indeed need to be expanded, that isn't necessarily a reason to delete it. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] BC Pension Corporation
No references were found that confirm this article's claim of notability, which allows it to pass WP:CORP. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Rally (band)
Notability was questioned in July and has not been addressed. The article admits that this is an unsigned band and no references have been given to substantiate any degree of notability. The article has been largely edited by The dob boy who has no other Wiki edits; one of the band members is called Dobbin, suggested a conflict of interest and self-promotion. The article's creator has no other edits. I confess to being ignorant of the current Scottish music scene, but strongly suspect that this article owes more to vanity and wishful thinking than to musical accomplishment. Emeraude (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] Kohana (web framework)
Previous AfD for this article:
The article fails the general notability guidelines as it has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Very few reliable secondary sources exist discussing Kohana, and sources offered on the talk page are not reliable. All sources used in the article are self-published by the people working on the framework. Sources found generally include blog posts, forum posts, wiki articles, and self-published news articles as primary sources. While it appears the framework is gaining popularity with Gallery and osQuantum, there simply isn't a lot of coverage for the framework yet. Perhaps in the future Kohana will become notable, but as it stands I do not believe it warrants an article. Odie5533 (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
