The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator with no other !votes recorded ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:Brandon Keener (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Withdrawn. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, but feel free to merge any significant information. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this cinema. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This rugby league footballer has never played first grade, and has only played representative football at a junior level. He therefore fails WP:ATH. Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
University instructor who has published a few articles - not notable. No sources. Be in Nepean (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Record label, who may have some notable clients, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Has been un-sourced for nearly five years. Codf1977 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N. Can't find a single secondary RS to base this article on. It's possible that I'm missing important Arabic sources. The six weeks of one single on a single radio station article claim (unsourced) appears to not meet WP:BAND. Joe Decker (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. BLP with no reliable sources for over a year. — Jeff G. ツ 19:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily Deleted per G3 (Non-admin closure) Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased film per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, unreferenced, nothing about it online, probable WP:HOAX. Empty Buffer (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced article. Google searches show no indication of notability. Only 4 hits - none of which appear to back up this article. WP:reliable sources required. Possible hoax. Article creator disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jasmebo is not famous so google won't pages about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutoputo (talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@talk:Noq i said its a quite less famous story and that makes it reasonable to let it stay... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutoputo (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@talk:Noq i said its a quite less famous story and that makes it reasonable to let it stay...Cutoputo (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cutoputo (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)I'm sorry I was mistaken to consider Jasmebo as a part of a myth, it actually is a character of folk lores about it. I would also like to suggest that Gujarati in the special characters lacks perfection.[reply]
The result was no consensus. Both sides ahve made reasonable arguments, and participation is such that I don't think relisting now would lead to a consensus. Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a notable topic per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:MEMORIAL. Marokwitz (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A street that's a couple of hundred yards long, with (as far as I can see) no remarkable structures in it or other features that might make it notable. The references included in the article egregiously fail to meet the WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources, and I'm not finding anything better. Deor (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. I personally found the "keep" arguments more persuasive, but viewed objectively, both sides make arguments that have not been refuted. NAC by—S Marshall T/C 19:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
WP:SOAP The list has a definitional problem in that if we take the weak atheist definition then everyone is born an atheist and therefore every believer is technically a former atheist. However, the purpose of the list is to highlight those particular believers who are notable and make a point of declaring themselves to have been former atheists. But believers almost always do this solely for the purpose of recruitment or propaganda. Qed (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably going to disagree with you about whether "believers almost always do this solely for the purpose of recruitment or propaganda", and I'd suggest you might want to read WP:POINT, but I'm still in favour of getting rid of this list. Claritas § 16:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus whatsoever. Certain comments here seem to have been made in the mistaken belief that individual items on a list must be notable. I was personally most persuaded by Mark Kupper's short but well-reasoned thought, but viewed objectively, there is no consensus on what to do with this list. NAC by—S Marshall T/C 07:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
The article is overly duplicative with Masonic Temple, Masonic Temple (disambiguation), Category:Masonic buildings and several other pages that contain essentially the exact same information. No citations are given to substantiate inclusion. There is no clear criteria for inclusion. No citations are given to substantiate notability of the topic. List largely consists of red-links (and has since the last large expansion in 2008). Blueboar (talk)
Keep - clear inclusion criteria. Meets WP:List and WP:CLN discounts the category duplicative arguement. The fact that it is duplicative of three DAB pages might indicate the DAB pages are ill-concieved. As they are special kinds of lists, it seems inappropriate to make the duplicative statement based on them. I am confident there are 1000s of DAB pages that duplicate other real lists. A rename to the effect: List of Masonic Lodges, Temples and Buildings would certainly simplify things. Deletion is not the answer here.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... let's actually look at these books...
So, of the six sources you suggest we look at... only one might possibly perhaps (maybe) support the idea that the topic of "Masonic buildings" is notable (and I will be checking on that)... the rest do not. (Please, do not assume that a source discusses a topic based on a quick google search and the book's title.) Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's try this the other way... can anyone clearly express what does make the topic of "Masonic buildings" notable? Can we identify even three common traits that would help us distinguish a "Masonic building" from some other type of building? Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I just figured it is a literal copy of Dutch_name#History_of_Dutch_surnames, with no aditional information added. That article also explains the extremely odd names. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what to think of this article. It is apparently a woefully incomplete list which is apparently redundant with List_of_most_common_surnames_in_Europe#Netherlands. The second list actually seems to be based upon some census rather then being a random list of surnames.
Also, common surnames would be "Rotten people", "Excrement", "Born Naked" and "urinates"? Seems extremely dubious. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a definition of a word, and shouldn't be an article under WP:DICTIONARY? Dengero (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Scouting in Kentucky. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 17:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is completely unsourced, non notable, and speculative. It is about a local Boy Scout troop and per the ScoutingWikiProject's (of which I am coord-emeritus) own guidelines is non notable. I Prod'd this but it was contested. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. This is a classic example of how swamping an afd with irrelevant non-policy based arguments from spa's is a good way to get your article deleted as it is extremely hard to winnow out the wheat from the chaff here. What is clear is that either the book or the individual are notable but its not entirely clear that we have a consensus on either so I'm calling this no-consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Nick Russell Fowler is a non-notable person lacking Google Search and Google News hits. Vipinhari || talk 17:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr Fowler seems to be a rather talented young American writer and musician who has written a novel that was reviewed quite favorably in the NY Times Book Review some years ago, has been the lead singer of a musical group that was under contract for a major international record company, and has been a professional writer of music for performers in the American C&W genre. According to sources, he continues to write fiction and music, and continues to perform, all at a high level. I wonder why would anyone suggest that information about this young man and his work is neither noteworthy nor of interest as his career develops. Avi5000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avi5000 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC) — Avi5000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was redirect to Survivor: Borneo. and delete. BLP1E clearly applies and many of the keep votes are not policy based. I discarded Pinkbull's delete vote as it was contradictory. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Striking comment about pinkbull's vote which was broken by a typo. Post close amendment makes no difference to outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is known for one thing: lasting one episode of Survivor. That's not notable, and if it is, it is a WP:BLP1E. Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Deenanath_Mangeshkar. (unless a better target can be found). The "Delete" commenters are correct that there is no significant sourcing - passing mentions etc. In a BLP this is clearly important. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Have found a few pieces that mention her but are primarily about someone else, in two of the three articles one of her sisters. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 21:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Xcode. Spartaz Humbug! 19:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for inappropriate style since 2007. This article is essentially a changelog and presents information as minor as a bugfix release dates. Some of the content may be integrated into Xcode. A separate article doesn't seem justified. Don Cuan (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. The independent, secondary coverage of this musician that I can find is limited to a passing reference in this article [20] There's a variety of self-published sources available on web search, but I just don't see the base of reliable, secondary independent sources necessary to write any sort of biography. Joe Decker (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Indian Community" which does not meet WP:N. It's verifiable through Google that it exists, but there's no clear indication that the article is anything other than original research. Claritas § 07:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet the notability criteria. Seems like a web project according to the references given, and a quick check on google wasn't indicative. Dengero (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check on google doesn't indicate the content in the article is true. Possible hoax or a definition came up by the author? Dengero (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable book. Notability Issues? Dengero (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, my analysis of the sources in the article:
Edgepedia (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.Thank you for the offer. No,he's not the "military history" author. As for the title, it was done because I had no choice. When I originally joined Wikipedia, I sent 4 submissions in instantly. All 4 were rejected, I was falsely accused of "hoaxes" and "vandalism", and was blocked -- all within 24 hours. It took several e-mails and phone calls to finally get unblocked. When I tried to resubmit this current page under any of the old titles (like RICHARD H. CAMPBELL or THE BIBLE ON FILM) a warning came up saying I wasn't allowed to do so because I had already tried. So I created this "combo-title" in order to try again. I fully expect this page will be deleted, but I don't know why. I read all the guidelines and followed them perfectly: "be bold", "concise", "brief" (it's only 1 sentence!), show no "personal bias", present the facts only ("just the facts, ma'am" as they said on DRAGNET) and offer no opinion. It also says to list as many references as possible. I listed 11 references! I could list more, as when I google the book's title, 7 pages come up (from all over the globe). But I think 11 is enough (if you don't take the Library of Congress, then you won't take anything). Any help you can give to make it look better is appreciated. I never even heard of Wikipedia until March 2010, so I am new to this. But I tried. And everyone has been really fair. Thank you. Abbythecat.~~ ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbythecat (talk • contribs) 22:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abby, I can tell you are very frustrated because of not understanding the system or requirements here. The problem is that not everyone, and not every book, is considered noteworthy enough to be included in an international encyclopedia. Your references (such as the library of congress) prove that the book exists; that satisfies the requirement of WP:V verifiability. The problem we are having is what Wikipedia calls notability. I really don't think Mr. Campbell himself is notable by Wikipedia standards (see WP:PEOPLE, but it's possible the book might be. The criteria for a book to be notable are here: WP:NBOOK.
Specifically, a book is notable if:
It's possible the book might slide by under "significant contribution" to the genre of writing about movies, but we would have to see where someone (other than you or Mr. Campbell himself) says so. Or it's possible that the reviews you mentioned would do the trick - but we have to see them. Can you provide any kind of link to where those references are? Or how do you know about them?
I have put the article into proper Wikipedia form, that's a start; but unfortunately I think it is likely to be deleted. Not because of how it is written or anything you could do differently, just because the man himself is not "notable" as Wikipedia understands it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Reclassify? The book is definitely notable. Prior to its release there was almost no discussion about the subject of the bible in film, but since then interest and study of the subject has increased exponentially, with many books being written on the subject and numerous university courses studying it as well (Google ' "The Bible On Film" Campbell site:edu' for example). This was the first book to list, detail and excerpt reviews from the various biblical films and remains an important reference work for those of us studying in the field of Theology and film. MattPage (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC) — MattPage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW and the fact that WP:BEFORE has been argued to apply here. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unless the eponym of every single town in America gets their own article. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article at List of Days of our Lives characters, but my attempts at redirecting there have been reverted twice. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should not be deleted. The notability can be proved, these characters appear in almost every episode of the serial. That's why they have there own separate article. Sami50421 (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC) editor has since been blocked as a sock of User:Gabi Hernandez.[reply]
Keep Characters are hardly not notable. Most of them appear in almost every episode, and some are the children of famous supercouples such as Bope, and EJAMI. Gabriela Hernandez 05:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs)
The result was keep. HEY HEY HEY . (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article requires editors with access to references on the topic and reasonable knowledge of English. None are forthcoming. The editor that created the article, User:Anastasiia Bilenska, has not edited it since it was new on the 28th of November 2009 nor made any edits on Wikipedia since the 29th of November. Faults in the article remain unchanged since that time including non English words such as "metalospozhyvachamy." I recommended deletion on the talk page on the 26th of May 2010, with no comments from other editors since then. User:Ironholds marked the article with a multiple issues template on the 18th of December, but there have been only minor fixes that did not address the major problems apparently done by editors without the access to technical documents that would be needed to fix major problems. It would be easier to do a new article on this topic than to fix the present one. Fartherred (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. fuzzy510 (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO, but most importantly we've got an OTRS request at 2010061210025653 to have this unreferenced, dangerously underwatched article removed. I'd appreciate it if the community would kowtow to Mr Karman's concerns. Ironholds (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to American_Revolutionary_War#An_international_war.2C_1778.E2.80.931783. Spartaz Humbug! 19:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has been prodded for 7 days with concern "Spin-off from American_Revolutionary_War#An_international_war.2C_1778.E2.80.931783 not used anywhere and without the proper history (i.e. a comment saying it came from whatever version of American Revolutionary War), it's a GFDL problem." Sending to AfD because I don't think GFDL issues should be handled via the PROD process. No opinion on the outcome, this concern is outside my areas of expertise. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a magazine that does not claim or establish notability. A Google search does not indicate obvious notability. Sandstein 16:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need to relist this article, a delete nomination and two delete comments. and one keep vote that claims to be rewriting the article soon. Off2riorob (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merged and redirected to Image_resolution#Pixel_resolution. Thanks to Dicklyon and ErikHaugen for boldly doing the work. JohnCD (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is 3 years old and still is just a definition. This should be deleted because wikipedia is not a dictionary. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no others in favor of deletion. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable restaurant. Being "the hardest reservation to get in the US" and having multiple sources does not prove its notability. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claims to notability are tenuous at best:
Google Books turns up the following:
The last AFD, from May 2009, closed (prematurely, in my opinion) as a keep after only two !votes. Those two !votes claimed this, this and a now-domain-parked link as third-party coverage, but those two websites are definitely not reliable sources in any fashion.
In short, there are several sources out there that use Songfacts as a point of reference, but absolutely none have given the site itself any sort of third-party, non-trivial coverage. Simply being used as a reference in another notable work is not enough to pass the threshhold of notability; notability is not inherited. I should also point out that Songfacts.com is on the URL blacklist, which indicates that its use as a reference is somewhat dubious. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This is plaguarised rather then a direct copyvio but its clearly a rewrite from the same text so best start over. No objection to this being recreated from scratch Spartaz Humbug! 19:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite questionable on WP:N; no inline citations and limited references. Creator has a possible WP:COI as well. mono 04:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Goumenissa#Mayors of Goumenissa. Spartaz Humbug! 19:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability: there does not appear to be any significant press coverage of him as a mayor in the Greek language, and Goumenissa is hardly a major city. Google searches ([38] & [39]) turn up a few dozen results, mostly mirrors of the wiki articles or referring to an entirely unrelated professor. Constantine ✍ 03:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the reference indicates that this group is not serious. Debut album was supposed to be released in summer of 2007, but nothing has been released. Zero coverage, etc. Fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined prod; person of possible but undemonstrated notabilty; questionable sources that do not fully support text: WP:BLP PhGustaf (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional coatrack for Hear It See It Music. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is about a radio show, but no independent reliable sources have been provided to demonstrate notability and none have been found outside press releases or passing mentions. Notability is also not inherited. TNXMan 20:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I am not sure what types of coverage must be found to demonstrate notability. I wanted to create the resource for other people who might be looking for the information (like I was).
Thanks in advance and please part my inexperience. This is the first time I've contributed an article and it seems like there is a great process in place for reviewing material to filter out spammers, but I must admit it's disappointing that there isn't an easy-to-understand resource to explain minimum notability requirements (or at least I haven't found/don't understand).
Best regards, ElvisOfDallas (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GNews returns 0 hits in English (2 hits in Polish but it's not clear if the article is about "Showoff Records" or whether it is just mentioned.) Does not seem to meet the notability requirements in WP:CORP. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Showoff Records is an independent record label, big in the hiphop underground community. Here is a write up on one of their albums released http://www.xxlmag.com/online/?p=53073 Jfreck (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
then here is a writeup about the record label http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/interviews/id.1493/title.the-year-of-the-showoff-part-1 http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/interviews/id.1500/title.the-year-of-the-showoff-part-2 Jfreck (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was now moot. now moot Spartaz Humbug! 19:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't been aired yet (WP:CRYSTAL), fails WP:N (See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pause (Boondocks)) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable demo per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable political candidate. Never held elected office, and failed to win the nomination in a U.S. House race. No notability outside of election. Per WP:BLP1E, he is only notable for this one event. -LtNOWIS (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he also clerked for Clarence Thomas, in addition to being the top lawyer at the FCC, as was mentioned above. ~BLM (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]