The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one-line article was created and listed as unreferenced in December 2009, and has had 2 edits since then, neither of which have added content. The subject is listed at the parent page, Hebrew Theological College, also as a one-line mention. Until biographical details become available, it does not meet WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus.
There have been many points of contention in this debate. A summary of each is provided below:
Overall, despite a large numerical majority to keep, the "keep" side has not fully addressed the issues raised by the "delete" side. Hence the result.
Note that there was substantial support for a selective merge into Economic impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami if/when it is created. This option may be discussed on the talk page.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The earthquake is having an impact on all sorts of industries. Giving undue attention to the video game industry is not a neutral point of view. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 22:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article that purports to be about a new philosophy (which wouldn't merit an article here, per WP:NOR), but which is actually attempting to promote the company "Janus Thinking Ltd." and the website janusthinking.com, which apparently exist to propagate this new philosophy. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted g7, author blanked page. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google seems to verify that the person exists--that's all. The article on the Lithuanian wiki has one source, and even if I could verify that I don't think it would be enough. Try the various Google searches: nothing, except for this, which is nothing. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Db-authored, close AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 22:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Six years after the article was created, I call bullshit. Unverified BLP with nothing to show for by an IP editor who was brought up for vandalism in an RfC (for historical purposes, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/67.86.174.158). Delete quickly please. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax, please mark any more like this for speedy deletion. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page created by a disruptive pseudonewbie who removed a PROD. Fails WP:GNG and every other policy about notability and reliability. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BLP of a non-notable subject.- camr nag 19:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Mandsford 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a beauty pageant title holder for which I am unable to find any sources to satisfy verifiability. The article states that she represented Albania at Miss Universe 1994. Our own wikipedia article doe not list any entrant from Albania. I've used pageantopolis for looking up other beauty contestants, and it turns out the Wikipedia article is sourced from there. It, of course, doesn't list any entrant from Albania. Searches on google news, and books turn up no results, and web search results fail to find any reliable sources. There is also a claim for 3rd runner up at Miss Globe in 2001. This may not be the same competition as I gather that there are, or have been mutliple contests that have used this name. However, her name doesn't appear as an entrant in that list, and I can find not other sourcing for any Miss Globe that has her as an entrant. The year of competition for Miss Europe is unspecified but I found this which shows a Lida (not Ilda) Reka competing for Albania. I conducted additional searches using "Lida Reka" but could find no sources using that name either. She would meet notability as a pageant title holder if there were sources to verify it, but there are none. Whpq (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 22:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for subjective rankings made by a single niche website. MMA PFP rankings are highly contentious, and meaningless from a practical point of view since these fighters rarely fight each other. There is no authoritative PFP list, so there should not be a page for any of them. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 22:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable field of study. Phearson (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely clear whether Smarandache passes the WP:PROF criteria (the first AfD was somewhat divided); he may because of the number of things (such as functions and numbers) named after him. But the main point is that there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources (independent of the subject) that talk about Smarandache himself. Without these sources, this article can't satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability, so it should probably be deleted. Mlm42 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak keep per above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchall (talk • contribs) [reply]
The result was redirect to Wicked Witch Software. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable game for mobile phones, only references provided are from its developer. WuhWuzDat 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Beautiful Soul. BigDom 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable song. Fixer23 (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and no Delete !votes - per WP:KEEP#1 (non-admin closure) Enfcer (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopeless public relations/propaganda. Numerous updates by user purporting to be subject. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. The references don't seem to refer here. No inward links. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion as (1) tagged for improved references since 2008 and none supplied. (2) Largely the product of a single editor who has not edited any other article [20]. (3) Appears to be solely a promotional piece. (4) Doesn't meet notability criteria WP:ORG as there is only trivial or incidental coverage of the company by secondary sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A new theory of the universe probably being promoted by its creator. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 22:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet criteria for inclusion. Freeware game made with RPG Maker. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closing as moot. Article was deleted already by User:Orangemike citing WP:CSD#G7, requested by the main editor. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can find sources for SGVM meaning "Start-up General Valuation Model" but not one called "Stuart's" on Google, GBooks or GNews. Based on the searches it seems doubtful that the significant impact required against the general notability guideline can be met using independent reliable sources. PROD removed without explanation, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. I am speedy deleting this. The result of this AFD is a no-brainer, and allowing this article to exist (and be caught by mirrors) simply adds to add publicity to a newstory of a stupid girl who made a life-wrecking self-destructive mistake. A racist rant on youtube is WP:NOT encyclopedic. The fact that it made a couple of newsheadlines is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. In the unlikely event this story gains traction, we can debate it again in a few weeks. Scott Mac 09:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook case of an individual notable for only one event, and so not deserving of an article. The event itself is unlikely to receive lasting coverage, meaning a move is unlikely to be appropriate. Note that this article was created before at Alexandra Wallace (student), but was deleted under G10. -- Lear's Fool 08:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom 22:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was blanked by a new user who has a username which is the same as the article in question. I'm taking this to mean that the person in question doesn't want a biography on Wikipedia. While we can't just remove articles because people don't want them, this is a BLP and, after doing a quick search, the only significant coverage I can find is [22], which I don't think can be considered independent, as it is published by the club he was a board member on. To sum up, I don't believe we should have a BLP on a person of fringe notability who does not want the article to exist. Jenks24 (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jenks24 appreciate your thoughts. What is a bop? Sorry blp not bop— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlessitch (talk • contribs) 3:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article was re-created after deletion from previous AfD. Reasons for deletions from previous time holds true again. Person appears to be a non-notable docent. Has published some articles, but I can't find much. Says he is at the University of Stockholm. He is not listed when I searched on the Univ. site, but some published articles had him there in the past. Bgwhite (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:CRIN. --Selket Talk 16:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personal Page. Problems with notability. Please provide reasons to why this person is relevant and needs to be included in wikipedia. -- Throwaway2011 (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Community (season 2). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I love Community as much as the next girl, but not every episode will meet notability guidelines. This is one such episode. There is no information here that isn't already included on the main episode list. In fact, the episode list for season 2 contains this information plus a summary. I am gonna have to go ahead and request AfD. At this time, there is an insufficient amount of external content specific to this episode. Valid sources currently offer one of three things: plot summary, ratings, critical review/recap. Per Wikipedia's style guidelines for television episodes, in order to be considered notable, an episode article needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The MOS guideline for writing about fiction clarifies that "the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate." As with most individual television episodes, it is unlikely that these requirements can be met at this point.
I have considered merging - but as previously stated, there is nothing in this article that wasn't simply C+P from the main list. Redirect may still be an option, but that seems like an unnecessary step. In the main list, linked articles currently point to genuinely notable episodes in the series' history - leaving this episode as an internal WP link (just to redirect back to itself) seems too convoluted and is misleading at first glance. Deletion is a much better option in this case, as absolutely no new information will be lost. ocrasaroon (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This person seems to be only notable for one event, being involved in a controversy about what he wrote about another person. The introduction gives some general facts about his life and career without making any real claim to notability, then the article gets into the controversy and spends most of its time there. Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not needed since the Mexico U-22 caps will count as a full senior international cap in Copa America matches. GoPurple'nGold24 03:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under CSD A7 by User:DragonflySixtyseven. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of of notability, most references link to about.com, only the quotes are referenced. Documentary is 10 minutes long (even though this is not a criteria)... really? Goes on and on. Also one of the external links goes to the Black Swan website. MobileSnail 03:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) MobileSnail 03:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication he meets WP:BIO. The article has only one reliable secondary source, and that's actually an obituary of his brother, not him. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. we don't report every fatal crash in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded, then undeleted via WP:REFUND. Still doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS as there are no secondary sources to be found; albums by notable artists aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded, then undeleted via WP:REFUND. Still doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS as there are no secondary sources to be found; albums by notable artists aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There shall be no prejudice against speedy renomination, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At best a minor character in the Transformers franchise which need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Aston Martin Vanquish. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Aston Martin Vanquish S is simply a tuned version of an existing car, the Aston Martin Vanquish. It is therefore analogous to the LP670-4 version of the Lamborghini Murcielago, the GTO version of the Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, or the Super Sport version of the Bugatti Veyron. None of these special trims have -- or need -- their own page; they are covered as sub-models within the parent article. This should be true of the Vanquish S. I would have proposed this as a merge, but the Vanquish article already contains almost the entire text of the Vanquish S article, so a merge is superfluous. Sacxpert (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Lack of debate makes this a no quorum closure, with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. -- Lear's Fool 13:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of meeting WP:MUSIC#Albums, lacks coverage to show independent notability. Aside from original research this article is little more than a track listing. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No indication of notability of this album. WP:SPEEDY#A9
Incidently this band has a main article And One, a discog article And One discography, 4 album articles Anguish (album), Flop!, Aggressor (And One album) and Bodypop, and a couple of single articles.Sometimes (And One song), Zerstorer (And One song) (as well as 3 others currently under Afd discussion. None of these articles makes any vague attempt to establish notability apart from one unsourced mention of a 'best newcomer award' from an unspecified body and a few attempts to inherit notability from the bands they have covered or aspired to copy. I'm not saying the band isn't notable (I don't really feel qualified to judge it) but there really needs to be some attempt at sourcing or else a major cleanup here. Bob House 884 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP, can't find anything to verify this guy. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Beyoncé Knowles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only content in this article is the extensive track listing and an infobox. After a web search I found only an amazon sale page. No reviews, no sales/chart info. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article into Anthology Edition article. I'd like to assure that awards aren't a factor for notability, many albums out there are notable and don't receive a single award. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
foundation of questionable notablity WuhWuzDat 08:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 13:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article about a voice actor who works on video games. No evidence of notability sufficient to meet WP:GNG let alone WP:CREATIVE andy (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncan Botwood. andy (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable article about an amateur group in a college. all refs are their promotional blogspot and youtube links. edits by an WP:SPA and from the IP addr of that college Arjuncodename024 16:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines or the subject notability guidelines for authors; there does not seem to be enough coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable "musician" WuhWuzDat 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow.. "non notable" besides the fact that he was ranked number by BILLBOARD and published in their tangible issue as well. This "Wuhwuzdat" guy is a simply just wants the page down for some reason. Kevinbarlow (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Wave power. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable: I cannot find news paper articles on this technology and company, see e.g. this search. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to B.T.R. (album). (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSONG -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains only unreliable sources and is written like an advertisement. Alpha Quadrant talk 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability questionable. No independent sources. Eeekster (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Y Bandana (album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable songs. Article's creator claims that the winning of an award by a magazine establishes notability, but I disagree. Strikerforce (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to M60 machine gun. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Mk43 Machine Gun is know as the Mk43/M60E4 General Purpose Machine Gun. The topic seems to be covered sufficiently by M60 machine gun#M60E4/Mk43 Mod 0/1. The article sources itself to a copyrighted editorial uploaded into wikimedia.org. See http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/MK43Editorial.pdf (How is such an upload even possible?) M60E4 was deleted in 2005 as blatant copyright violation from M60E4.Mk43.pdf.[29] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has only one source, and it has no third party or real world coverage. Most of The Venture Bros. are not notable, it currently fails WP:PLOT and WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 10:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only one source, this Venture Bros. character has no citations and no real world or third party coverage to establish the notability. I doubt that the character is notable, this article currently fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. JJ98 (Talk) 10:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]