The result was delete if anyone wants to tackle merging it, let me know and I'll userfy -- Samir धर्म 07:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside for one moment the dodgy capitalisation of the title, which could be easily fixed, I'm not sure about this article as it currently stands. It looks like the sort of thing which could easily waver between OR and essay with little substance to back it up. granted it does cite a poll, but this seems lopsided to say the least, possibly to the point where cleanup alone won't fix it. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was hopeless, hopeless lack of consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1st AFD) The information in the first five sentences of this article is already in Santorum Controversy. The "References in the media" section is original research unless it can be shown that sources independent of, say, the Economist took note of its reference of "santorum." Everything else in the article is unsourced and unsourceable by reliable sources that are independent of Dan Savage or those working to popularize this neologism. "Santorum" itself fails WP:NEO, which requires reliable sources about the neologism. I didn't wade through all the Google hits, but a cursory look shows lots of unreliable, POV sources like blogs, and I found zero sources in a Lexis-Nexis search (even in local Pennsylvania sources) that discuss "santorum" beyond a dicdef or verify the material in the article beyond the first five sentences. The ADS award,[1] of which so much was made in the first AFD, is trivial, and the ADS source provides only a dictionary definition, nothing we can build a Wikipedia article on.
I'm puzzled why the first AFD resulted in keep. The closer said there was "substantial support among established commenters that this word has now reached encyclopedic notability." But, assuming "encyclopedic notability" refers to the primary notability criterion, I think the closer's conclusion is untenable, given that the first AFD produced, and the article right now provides, no non-trivial, reliable, external sources of which "santorum" is the subject, which we could use to write a verifiable article. Many keep voters in the first AFD cited "widespread use," but again, at Wikipedia we need reliable sources about the term, not sources that use the term, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
I suspect that many people who will come to participate in this AFD are shocked that anyone could think this term is not notable. To them I would emphasize that notability has an objective meaning on Wikipedia: if someone can find multiple non-trivial reliable external sources about "santorum," then that would establish notability. Otherwise, not.
In conclusion, delete for failing WP:N and WP:NEO. There is no sign that there is enough source material to re-write or reference this article in a way that conforms with WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Pan Dan 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This word was rejected from Wiktionary because it could not be demonstrated that anyone independent of its coiner was actually using it in running text. Uncle G 01:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)*Comment At this point, Pan Dan has posted 4249 words in 51 posts in this deletion discussion, compared to 7285 by all others combined. The article in question, with all references, etc., only amounts to 1,979 words. Edison 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As myself and others have noticed on the talk page, the only reference to it on google is the page itself. There are some references on google to a four state area that is a broad region, whose metropolitan center is not Joplin, Missouri. However seeing as how the article is serving basically as the Joplin Metropolitan Area page, and contains nothing in its title to distinguish itself from other four state areas or even to locate it in Missouri, its validity is in question as well as its purpose. Grey Wanderer 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Samir धर्म 07:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability made. Fails WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Article should be deleted. RWR8189 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\talk 03:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company, was created by Kaizendenki (talk · contribs) (whose username is the same as the title of this article) which I thinkk violates conflict of interests guideline Dylan Lake 01:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:12Z
First AfD No assertion of notability made. Fails WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Article should be deleted. RWR8189 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it doesn't provide such proof and as far as I can see, does not pass WP:WEB. Those arguing it does, please point out how.
– No, you don't get an article of your own, any more than Bonnie Malmat would. But if you were part of a 6.000 person group that helped start a LAN party that was reported on throughout North America, then yes, maybe that group deserves a mention. TrekBBS was the place where those groups began, where their founders came from, and it's still a place where published and established writers and many other Trek notables have joined and participated, and continue to participate. ElHoserGrande 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:11Z
Nominated for deletion by 67.86.149.41. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 02:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who nominated it for deletion and because I'm anonymous, it would not let me put a reason for deletion.67.86.149.41 06:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent)It was one of Booyaka's key argument points, and the lack of objection at the time led me to believe it to be the case. OK, Booyaka's completely unreliable when it comes to policy (which is why I wish I'd known about WP:IAR at the time) but the lack of reaction to his hard and fast view re proof was not helpful. [[User:Curse of Fenric/sig]] 08:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been updated with sources. Curse of Fenric 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Cbrown1023. MER-C 04:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Twilight (novel) in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:07Z
This page is mostly a summary of what happens in both Twilight and New Moon. It is poorly written and structured, and has no proper editing that is usually seen on Wikipedia. Disinclination 02:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Nineteen Eighty-Four. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:35Z
DictDef, unsourced, so short should be in 1984 if it is not already. Contested prod. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
minor non-notable variation of Godwin's law A Ramachandran 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn, will re-nominate individually. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:24Z
Non-notable church/school. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-19 02:38Z
I would like to ask everyone participating in this discussion to explain their reasonings and spell out what you want to do with each article individually. The articles are sufficiently different for a mass decision to be inappropriate. - Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web game, no references or write-ups other than listings on MMORPG collection sites Delete Steve (Slf67) talk 03:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is a redirect to the above
The result was Speedy delete as vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable film, appears to be an indy film Dennisthe2 03:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:05Z
Does not meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 03:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, unsourced, neologistic title. Examples section is a relatively innocuous form of OR. Also, not funny. Contested prod. Opabinia regalis 04:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:23Z
This band appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Mil A Gritos does not appear to be a notable indie label, but I'm not exactly an expert on the Spanish indie scene. ShadowHalo 04:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. So many people want to see this improved... I hope someone is willing to do the work before it gets re-AFDed. ---J.S (T/C) 16:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this article is all subheadings, has no content, no reliable sources, for that matter no sources at all, and is all origional research. In addition, it is poorly written and heavily one sided.--Sefringle 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:22Z
The band has released albums on Household Name Records, whose article calls it "one of the UK's best known independent punk rock record labels" but is unreferenced. ShadowHalo 04:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, user-created map for a video game. No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Chovain 04:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, default keep as stub. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:04Z
The result was Speedily closed, the article has been heavily revised. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content of this tale supposedly attributed to Postclassic Aztec mythology is unverified, and does not seem to be accounted for in any of the standard primary/secondary sources. At best, this could be merely a modern invention/interpretation, of the tour-guide variety. Without substantiation as a genuine mythological account, merits deletion. cjllw | TALK 04:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19 December 2006 (UTC)
The result was no consensus to delete, esp. after the news article was found. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:19Z
The article claims that the band toured the UK five times, but there is no reference to support that. ShadowHalo 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus; keep for now but revisit later. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:03Z
Reason DGG 05:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, let me state that I removed the tag and was in the process of adding sources when you nommed this article here. That is perfectly fine, but I wanted to make sure you and the other editors understand that my removal of the prod tag wasn't in bad faith. It was just my first step in working to add sources and clean-up the article, as per the tag's instructions. With that stated, I would note the following about DGG's edit summaries' claims and those he notes above in the nomination:
Delete There's nothing in the article to suggest that this person satisfies notability requirements. Meghann 05:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, this is quite enough of SPAs only editing to say to delete this. If it isn't quite WP:POINT, it's close enough. -Amarkov blahedits 06:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because weffriddles got deleted so u might as well delete this as well Jimeie 05:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:00Z
Unsourced article on a religious organisation. Couldn't find anything reliable on Google. Fails WP:ORG and WP:V. Contested prod. MER-C 05:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep but only if references can be found. It does indeed seem like a first edit, and perhaps something could be done with it in the next few day.DGG 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to state why it is notable. There is also no references nor citations Meno25 05:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to state why it is notable. There is also no citations nor references Meno25 05:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Unambiguous delete of personal essay, amazing it's been around as long as it has. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a personal essay/anecdote that has remained unedited since its creation a year ago. Falls under guidelines in WP:NOT. Cla68 06:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Helen Alice Kinnear. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:55Z
The judge may be noteworthy; I don't think her house is. Akihabara 13:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:53Z
I'm not quite sure what makes a radio program notable or not, so I don't have any policy to go on here. Truthfully, it looks to me like advertising especially considering phrases like "wildly popular". I'll abstain as I don't know what the official policy on this type of thing is. Brad Beattie (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is from the talk page:
this seems like an accurate discription of the show, how else would you suggest to fix this problem? Ryn2me 14:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
also 'wildly popular' would be an accurate discription, seeing as they lead the ratings in the markets in which they broadcast Ryn2me
is the advertising tag going to be addressed or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryn2me (talk • contribs).
also...i think you missed a step with nominating the article, you did not notify me like you were supposed to, since i am the creator Ryn2me 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
i think this is a good quality article that should remain and just should be edited to make it better Ryn2me 18:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
keep Ryn2me 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If this article gets deleted then you should look at deleting all other syndicated radio shows and even look at TV shows because, seeing as how having something that is broadcast across such a large market doesn't make it notable and having formed a nationally recognized charitee, then what will Ryn2me 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ace_%26_TJ_Show"
This article had been on the deletion agenda for more than five days...if this problem isnt resolved soon i will send messages to all of the administrators since it isn't being treated fairly and should be removed as an AfD articleRyn2me 02:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this article has been on the agenda for more than five days, seven to be exact...making it two weeks, that is very unfair for an article...a decision on the article should be reached within 24 hours or i will write all of the top ranking members of wikipedia Ryn2me 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a Russian rock band. Fails all criteria in WP:MUSIC. No independent refererences. Contested prod. Mr Stephen 15:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Punkmorten 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Akihabara 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Renaming may be appropriate; please discuss at Talk:11:11 phenomenon. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:52Z
I'm nominating this material because I think that it is original research. The exact same material was added to the 11:11 article a day or two ago, and I removed it for the same reason. I offered to discuss my reasoning with the editor who created it, to see if we could reach a consensus, but no reply came. So I am bringing it to afd, to reach consensus. The original 11:11 article is in the state it is in, because of several afd's also. Basically my reasons are as follows:
For all of the above reasons, I believe that this article should be deleted is not ready for the article namespace.
TheRingess 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
. It's simply my opinion that statements like: "George Noory popularized this belief" or "Another common claim..." represent unpublished analyses. In the second phrase, that documents one person's claim the thing that makes it original research is the word common. From the weblink we know the person is a believer, but how are we to determine that amongst all of the believers his viewpoint is common. Perhaps, even amongst it's adherents, this person is considered to be "out there" so to speak. Take away the word "common" and the editor is simply giving one person's opinion, without establishing the notability of that opinion. Also to talk about what "skeptics" might or might not believe, without mentioning who they are and where their viewpoints were published represent unpublished arguments. It's just my opinion, but those statements seem to me to fit the definition of original research. Also to call something a "phenomenon" is to inherently imply that it is something that has been observed, studied and researched.TheRingess 03:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position
The result was redirect to Chinese cuisine. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:15Z
Delete, WP:NOT a collection of plot summaries for songs that were never released as singles and are thus non-notable outside of the context of the album. Recommend removal of edit history through deletion and subsequent recreation as redirect to Chinese cuisine. --Kinu t/c 07:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article is now at Chinese Food (Rapper Jin song). |
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 03:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-19 07:22Z
The result was early closure of this discussion, as suggested by several contributors here and on the admin noticeboard. This mass nomination clearly won't produce any sort of meaningful consensus either way. All remain free to re-list these articles individually. The nominator is kindly requested to remove the AfD tags from the articles. Sandstein 20:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a team specific to Major League Gaming, but fails to be notable under WP:BIO. Also included in this AfD are the following pages:
I would check the contributors' other edits to these pages, as they're all recent and they all centre around the MLG. There seems to be over a dozen pages associated with this.
Even if the page is remotely notable, the players are not. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user:arrashju 20 December 2006 @ 11:11 PM
Quoting WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1
Please do not even comment on this board unless you have a good understanding of the leagues. Why would WCG even take Halo off of their list of competitive games if MLG is so small? In addition, why would any organization broadcast for a non-affiliate anyway? How is USA Network different than any other US cable channel? Don't avoid answering the question directly anymore, why do you believe MLG and their top three teams are non-notable?
The result was Redirect to TradeWars 2002. Merge was considered appropriate but didn't happen. Redirect retains ability to merge if there is interest, and is relevant, and avoids recreation of separate articles. Since there was no discussion on the two Star Trek usages (TransWarp drive and Class H planet), I'm going to also redirect them to Tradewars 2002, but feel free to re-redirect or disambig them. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:42Z
Okay, I've got the same universal disdain for mass listings as anyone else, but I think the case for packaging here is open-and-shut. All of these articles are a massive walled garden of game-guide information, including extreme details about the specifications and statistics of individual ships. There is zero information from an out-of-universe perspective. Were that not enough, they are in fact specifically targeted for one version of the game. The article for the game version itself (TradeWars 2002) is not included in this AFD, although it probably should be merged with its parent Trade Wars article.
Articles in this package nomination:
--Serpent's Choice 08:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Highly disputable if this actually is the term used in Swedish politics for the broader Social Democracy. Soman 09:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to 8-Bit Theater. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:33Z
This article is a simple retelling of the plot of the webcomic 8-Bit Theater. This plot isn't especially significant for anything but the comic itself; in addition, the comic retells the story of the video game Final Fantasy. Including such a detailed plot synopsis here seems gratuitous and unnecessary. R. Wolff 10:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Search for "Fazzini paradox" on google yields only this page and another with a link to this page. All content is covered by liar paradox which is its proper name. This page creator's entries so far have only be vandalism. Andeggs 10:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Already merged, redirected please note that AfD is not meant to request merges. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt it is notable, but I suggest merge to parent article Arnold Schwarzenegger. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was dismissed as the article has been rewritten, expanded, sourced since the AFD nomination. No prejudice against renomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:32Z
I initially put this on proposed deletion, but the template was removed by Luna Santin citing that he wasn't familiar with precedent in this area. Looking at the article, it appears to be just a message bank service for telephone companies in the UK. I don't think any country's message bank service is notable and worth having a wikipedia article on because not much can be described about it beyond its features (which are generally the same everywhere). I note, however, that we have other phone number articles; 9-1-1, 000 emergency and 1-1-1 come to mind, while we have articles on all the N11 codes. I think emergency services and many of the services provided by n11 numbers are more important than voicemail, though admittedly some of the articles for the individual n11 numbers could be merged. As for this case, the article should be deleted as it is a message bank and not much can be said about it. Graham87 11:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD A7 and G11. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability or importance. No references from independent sources. No indication that subject meets inclusion criteria at WP:WEB. Article was tagged CSD-A7, speedy removed by first-edit IP 72.161.57.126 with summary (take it to afd...). So, here it is. Serpent's Choice 12:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deletion debate merged to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessio Ferramosca. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been bundled with the Alessio Ferramosca AfD, and similarly, he is not notable except for his death, and thus fails WP:BIO and meets WP:NOT a memorial. MSJapan 12:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:12Z
MMORPG, still in beta. Alexa is about 85,000, the only references are from the website and its associated forums. Fails WP:WEB. Contested prod. MER-C 12:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was nominated for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A1 (no context) and WP:CSD#A3 (no content). They do not apply. The remaining question is whether the subject is encyclopedic. That is why I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 13:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:28Z
editor keeps adding inappropriate speedy tag, procedural nomination, no vote A Ramachandran 13:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod, fails WP:MUSIC. Natalie 14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete by King of Hearts. Tevildo 21:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable company that fails WP:CORP. -- THL 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:11Z
Really not all that notable. Walton monarchist89 12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close; redirecting does not require AfD. I have made the article a redirect as a regular editor action. Tizio 14:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ciara: The Evolution. Blackjays 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasSpeedily closed. Article redirected per nominator's suggestion to existing article on this topic. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR (more or less). Serpent's Choice 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although this article may not fail any guidelines, there is already an existing article (Ratchet & Clank (PS3)) on the same subject. The article has been copy-and-pasted on the talk page of the existing article so that any additional information may be added on. If the deletion occurs, I suggest that the article in question be a redirect page to prevent any addition of articles. Sr13 23:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:27Z
Boigraphy of a photographer written by user:Tapujaveri with no 3rd party references. Looks like spam to me. -- RHaworth 14:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:26Z
Fails WP:WEB. All references except one seem to be a rehash of the press release, which the guidelines address Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site are not considered notable coverage. Doesn't appear to have won any notable awards. Site is brand new, still in beta. If and when it comes out and gains notability I wouldn't oppose its having an article. In addition, not in top 100,000 websites [31] hasn't bee on the radar with a measurable page reach until 3 weeks ago [32].Crossmr 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A top 100,000 website An established product with X amount of users Must have won notable awards Must not be in Beta Must not be "brand new" - Wikipedia only allows entries of Old Items and dated information
Wikipedia "GUIDELINES" state that an entry must meet 1 of 3 requirements to be posted. A person writing a press release does not make something notable. What makes it notable is who thought the press release was worthy of re-publishing. 99% of press releases wrote are trashed by the receivers. In this case, relevancy and notability prevail as this press release was picked up, published and/or edited by major influences in the industry/field it relates to:
IGN - the leader of online gaming felt it was important and relevant Warcry - One of the top 10 MMORPG gaming sites felt it was notable Stratics.com - A leader in delivering MMORPG industry news felt it was notable TentonHammer - Another industry leading website picked it up and reported on it.
If anything the entry should be re-edited for neutrality, but definitely not deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.82.230.25 (talk • contribs) 21:10, December 22, 2006.
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:25Z
Doesn't seem to serve a purpose and looks as if no one has worked on it in a while. At the very least WP:NOT#IINFO. Billboard lists can be good, but this one is poorly formatted and this info can be found elsewhere. eo 15:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:25Z
There are lists like this for 2004 and 2006 - all formatted poorly and they seem to fall under the WP:NOT#IINFO scenario. Not sure what the point is, as this info can be found elsewhere. eo 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:24Z
There are pages like this for 2004 and 2005 as well... all poorly formatted, seems to fall under WP:NOT#IINFO scenario. Not sure what the purpose is here, but this info can be found elsewhere. eo 15:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. (Article was rewritten entirely, so most of the AFD discussion became irrelevant; no prejudice against re-nomination.). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:23Z
Article merely pushes non-standard terminology; standard terminology is to use "computer architecture" to encompass both areas mentioned. RandomP 15:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as speedy A7 but contested. Creator, Drafell (talk · contribs) has no obvious contributions outside of this company and its creations, company is an independent with (according to the article) one released game. No particular opinion on it myself. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:19Z
non-notable publication Frater Xyzzy 16:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kimchi.sg 04:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been re-created and deleted several times, see especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorin Cerin. The question is whether there is notability. There is no doubt that he has written books (although arguably none from major presses or with significant sales). He appears to be a pretty determined self-promoter, which makes notability a bit difficult to judge. And a number of supposedly different people, but with nearly identical unorthodox punctuation in their posts, have been arguing for a keep. It was apparently determined that this could not be speedied as a re-creation because it is somewhat different than before, so we need to discuss it again. - Jmabel | Talk 16:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A musician with a tenuous claim to notability, little sources. A number of albums, but all home-made CDs. Been played on the radio, but not really "subject of a broadcast" or "national rotation on major network" as WP:BAND suggests. Just not anything WP:MUSIC-ish. Weregerbil 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:VANITY. - Francis Tyers · 17:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO,WP:MUSIC TonyTheTiger 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Out of the Park Baseball in lieu of deletion. Out of the Park Baseball should definitely be considered separately. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:18Z
Page fails WP:BIO and therefore the individual is non-notable. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested. No assertion of notability, spammy. Húsönd 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to online puzzle in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:16Z
I understand the original AFD was closed because a sock started it with no real valid reasoning, however I do beleive the AFD should have been allowed to stay the course. This article does not pass WP:V, WP:WEB, and has no Reliable sources or actually any at all. Brian (How am I doing?) 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked for and found nothing on google or dogpile.
Before we get into the exceptions, I can not find any of the listed items that are about this site.
I can't even find this for the website
Again, can't find anything outside of the web (since that is what the 'industry' would be) on this site.
Can't find anything that suggests it does nor does the website list any.
Again, no it has not.
If anyone can find multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game, I'll be all for keep. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 23:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable composer; does not seem to be subject of any third party sources (though he has apparently contributed some articles - not enough to meet the criteria for an academic); only a few hundred trivial google hits; original research (his "playing style" and compositional inspirations). Dmz5 18:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O.C. Model Gaze many google hits "O.C. Model Gaze" no google hits TonyTheTiger 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an NYU alum I certify that this faculty lounge is not notable and cannot be verified from multiple non-trivial published sources independent of NYU. Deprodded by an NYU IP address, no reason given. - crz crztalk 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable bordering on possible hoax or original research. An internet search yields few hits, most of them traceable back to this article. Glendoremus 18:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:13Z
Contested PROD, also there were copyright issues, and one user in particular is being pretty harassing about this whole issue. Yanksox 18:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 08:15Z
Contested PROD. Yanksox 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Yes, from what I know, subject has notability per the specifications. Subject is renowned outside his immediate locality, including the South Amercia, Israel, and throughout the world. Subject has been published by independant publishing houses, including Thomas Nelson Publishers, etc. I believe this article fulfills the guidelines. If you need any information please contact me, and thanks again for your tips and your help. I will begin to source some of my findings. Loaves 14:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.methings.com/podcasts/index.php?iid=1166 http://www.christiancomicsinternational.org/pioneers2.html http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/g/gregg-steve_revelation.html http://www.aiias.edu/academics/seminary/aass/vol3-2000/bookreviews.pdf
I want to specifically draw your attention to the PDF file. Search for "Steve Gregg." Let me know what your opinion is. -- Loaves 16:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but I think this would count as a neologism. 708 unique hits, albeit inculding a film title [34] but likely not one warranting inclusion in Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
686 Google hits, with nearly all of them meaning the term rather than the band. Fails all WP:BAND criteria. I wonder how this article servived for that long. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as speedy A7 (no asseriton of notability) but there is an assertion of notability. Whether it's credible is another matter. An artist getting exhibitions in art bars can be significant or insignificant, it depends on the context, and without secondary sources we can't really judge. The author has no contribs outside this subject and makes the usual "delete this and you must delete all these others" argument, but that does not necessarily mean this is bunk. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. A separate AFD should be opened to consider Nestlé Rowntree F.C.. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:08Z
Non-notable English football club. Play four levels below criteria previously accepted as notability bar, and have never previously played at higher level. fchd 20:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:09Z
Delete - two of the six images are already included in the Muhammad Iqbal article so merging isn't an option (would overwhelm the article) and there just doesn't seem to be a need for a separate article just for the tomb to note that there are many visitors each day. Otto4711 20:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.
Biographical article that provides no claim or evidence of notability. Resoundingly fails WP:BIO. Valrith 20:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:07Z
This website doesn't meet verifiability because of a lack of reliable sources. 13 unique google hits and an Alexa ranking of around 200,000. Also doesn't meet inclusion criteria at WP:WEB. Wafulz 20:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[35]. Abstaining. Chovain 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a mess. First, it's three different topics: a Simpsons reference, an improv comedy troupe with at least a claim to notability, and an apparently non-notable indie band. It's easy enough to delete the band info, but what of the other topics?
I think the whole lot should be deleted as all topics lack sufficient sourcing and notability. Perhaps this article should simply become a redirect to Bart vs. Thanksgiving, the episode on which the reference was made? Scientizzle 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy A7 by Firsfron. Tevildo 12:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There never was a character named Nathan Winthrop. It was a name that a character had wanted to use for a child that was miscarried. The show doesn't acknowledge the existence of the character, so there is no strong need for a page devoted to a potential name that may never have been used. D'Amico 21:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Kilmarnock F.C.. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:04Z
This entry fails to meet any nobility criteria. No sources are provided, reliable or not. At best it could be merged into Kilmarnock Football Club if such an article exists and a source is found. A failed prod. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An unexceptional gaming website. No sign that it meets WP:WEB. No sign of notability through independent reporting. Was prod'd, tag removed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject, and an apparent conflict of interest in article creation. I very much disagree with the previous AFD, whose outcome of "no consensus" was largely based on the nominator (possibly nominating on bad faith as well as disregarding WP:NPA), and a couple of keep votes that were very weak in my opinion. He has done nothing of any significance. —EdGl 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable and not verifiable. Can't find any reference to a "shell peanut". AJ Coyle is not notable and his article has been nominated for deletion. I can't find any reference to the assertion that the two Coyle's were brothers. Glendoremus 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:03Z
I declined a prod on this, last night, since it seemed to at least be better than the other 100+ pages I'd just deleted. I'm not entirely sure whether this particular person would meet WP:BIO. Gets some promising-looking results on Google, and even some hits on Google News (book reviews and such, mostly). So, I figure it can't hurt to ask the community what to do with this one. Thoughts? Luna Santin 21:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Neolithic religion. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:08Z
article seems to be essentially content-free Jefferson Anderson 22:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:07Z
Contested PROD Yanksox 22:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 07:03Z
Local police officer killed by a robber. Undoubtedly a tragedy, but doesn't seem encyclopedic. Chowbok ☠ 22:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:V, search for sources fails, hoax? original research? Jefferson Anderson 22:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Geese Howard. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:04Z
Unreferenced article about a Greek metal band with one album (Raging Storm (album)) and one single (Sword of Doom (album)) on apparently very minor labels. Fails WP:V and apparently WP:MUSIC Deizio talk 22:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable company as per WP:CORP. No sources provided. (aeropagitica) 21:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable company Xhtory 16:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This is a borderline A7, so if it spends a week on AFD with nobody objecting, it goes. >Radiant< 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Little has been done to improve and cite this page since ((notability)) was placed on it four months ago. Moreover, Google News has had no recent press coverage of him whatsoever, but can this be rewritten per AMG? (I'm now frustrated I ever nominated it at all, but forgive me if I did the right thing.) Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:04Z
Previous AfD failed due to a lack of consensus on what to do. Everyone agreed it wasn't notable enough, so it was split between a delete or redirecting. Hence, this article shouldn't be up. I don't see any indication of notability in it's own right or in relation to anything else. Delete. Yanksox 23:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per notability issues. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability. Subject has only a handful of Google hits.[38] SpuriousQ 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-26 14:03Z
Full disclosure: I am editor who originally ((prod))ded article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. >Radiant< 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This and other articles nominated are biographical entries about (alleged) concentration camp guards with no sources. They were subject to an earlier AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelmina Sadrinna here and kept. Since then, our policies have moved much more towards deleting unsourced biographical articles like this (they could possibly even be speedied under CSD G10). Alleging that someone is a concentration camp guard is a serious matter, and it essential that articles like this should be sourced or deleted. Enchanter 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC) I am also nominating the following other pages on the same grounds:[reply]
Please also discuss deletion of the articles below, bumped from speedy (note time of addition). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 10:40Z
Two more -- Samir धर्म 10:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the existence of these women are questionable (at the best non-notable, which is thin given that some are listed as head guards). Some are written as participating in real atrocities (Suze Arts), but further research of external sources do not show their involvement (Bunker Tragedy). Refer to my entry above for technical reasons why they should be deleted. --Eqdoktor 10:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: added another list of personnel to this AFD, see above. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-24 10:41Z
The result was merge >Radiant< 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by myself under A7, restored by User:Friday. After some discussion and a good deal of time, I'm still not convinced that this particular group would pass WP:BIO; it's possible they'd pass WP:MUSIC, but I'll leave that decision to the community. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I think the lack of really verifiable or reliable sources is itself an indication that notability is lacking. As the article says itself, "Although La Coka Nostra have yet to release a proper single, the mere posting of their songs on their myspace.com page music player...". Thoughts? Luna Santin 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the band is made up of all the former memebers of the House of Pain, so they do pass WP:MUSIC. However until they actually release an album, the best place for the information is on the HoP article. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 23:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you dont understand anything - maybe you would if you take a minute and read the article instead of typing up total nonsense here. house of pain is history, la coka nostra has nothing to do with them. it is a whole new thing. 87.186.12.193 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you guys idiots just looking for a reason deleting this? Is there ANYONE with ANY insight in the scene that doubt that this is a real group and not "a myspace band". This group got some heavy hype and bootlegs floating around in the NY underground. Not to mention Ill Bill namedropping La Coka Nostra in practically every song he's done lately. Or wearing the La Coka Nostra logo in the Jedi Mind Tricks video for "Heavy Metal Kings". Whats wrong with you? Get a damn grip, will you?
i got a bootlegged song called 'this is war off' off the Ill BIll Is The Future Vol. II album, i dont think anyone would bootleg a myspace band.. since i would assume they would be trying to get a fanbase by giving songs away for free, hardcore rap is not to my likes but keep the article.. 75.38.84.126 04:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC) [edit] heres some reassurance or here (where the 1st website links to) (note they are samples)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:59Z
Police officer killed in line of duty. With respect, WP:NOT a memorial. Deizio talk 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:56Z
Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- not notable. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G7, author requested deletion. Deizio talk 01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The official website link is listed right on the Wiki page. Please look at that website first. GreenMantis 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC) — GreenMantis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Of course the site is on a free server, we're 14, filming a non-profit show. We're not miracle workers. GreenMantis 23:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get why you're all acting like it has to be declared by the president to be official. We aren't getting started here, we've been started for a quite a while now. GreenMantis 00:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You all want to act like you're so much better than everyone else? Go ahead and delete it. Nobody actually comes here anyway
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari 04:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails WP:BAND and notability guidelines. Only 656 searches on Google for "The Guerrilla Cadets". Also reads like an advertisement. The external link leads to a page in MySpace!? Sr13 23:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion by Gkklein. No reason specified. My opinion is Neutral. Previous AfD here. Tevildo 13:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]