The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability WebHamster 23:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to create an almost-blank separate article on a so-called "series" of two entirely unrelated and not-so-notable movies. --Ranvir Sena 12:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
subject is non-notable and should be deleted as per several similar cases in this discussion. David Baggett has no first-class cricket connection although the article has tried to infer this. BlackJack | talk page 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:CORP, part of a walled garden with founders and family members who appear to fail WP:BIO. The longest of the bio articles, Marcos Rodriguez Sr., may have a case but was sourced to broken links and I was unable to verify much. Has been tagged for notability since November 06. Deiz talk 05:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this was deleted before for notability, and the original AfD was relisted when the page was recreated. Started a new second AfD nomination as a courtesy. Would have speeded it (db-repost), but I'm not sure of the entire story here and would feel better if it goes through AfD, especially if the article has changed since its original conception. I'm honestly not sure Rackabello 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Cattle, can be spun off again once there is more content. Sandstein 05:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax, seems very dubious. No sources so it also fails WP:V Questionable notability, only a single article, fails WP:V Rackabello 22:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, no need to keep this open any longer. Seems to be a WP:POINT nomination -- after all, article is a WP:GA. Only delete votes seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11/08/07- Nominated for Deletion. Reason: Wikipedia Policy- "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia"
Seems appropriate to add this to the deletion nomination too [→ AA (talk) — 22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]
DELETE - Ok, The Madeleine McCann story is a tragic one and anyone who reads the tabloids has been 'briefed' day in and day out since May on whats happening with the case. however, short of etching her face on the surface of the moon, everything has been done to raise public awareness about her. Loads of children are reported missing every day/month/year, so what makes this disappearance so sensational that it has to be publicised on Wikipedia? If new legislation is passed because of the case or if it turns out that she went missing because of neglegence that leads to procecution; then it may warrant an entry but there is nothing exclusive here that indicates this case deserves any sort of special treatment. One example in contrast (and consequently a significant article) could be the Jamie Bulger murder which was essentially the first instance of horrific child creuelty which was VERY high profile and set a benchmark in legal prosecution being taken aginst children and not their legal guardians. Or another example of a significant article would be the video game 'Manhunt' which conseqently led to an investigation into the link of violent video games to violent behaviour after the murder of a Leicester youth in 2004. As things stand at the moment, The McCann story simply doesnt warrant the attention it's receiving, let alone on a site that is used for academic and common knowledge purposes. If you're looking for updates on her, read the papers. Once her status is established, by all means produce an article IF something unique arises from the circumstances. but this is an irrelevant article for an encylopedia site. Irrelevant and of no historical value. Frequency24 11/08/07 22.24 GMT
The result was already speedied as having no assertion to notability. Chaser - T 22:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN high school aged "rap artist" who hasn't had a single release yet. Everything about the article seems dubious, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V, and WP:NOT Rackabello 22:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sean William @ 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the song is not a single and has not garnered enough airplay or attention to be considered worthy of notability. i dont see the point of it getting its own article simply because it's a song by pop diva beyonce. 70.123.134.68 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Stephan Schulz 16:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability has been found Dicklyon 22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A useful rebuttal of my claim that "No evidence of notability has been found" would be to point out one or more reliable secondary sources about the square root of 5. Then of course I would change my position to keep instead of delete. But barring such citations, the article should be deleted, according to WP:NOTE. Dicklyon 23:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable beauty pageant not covered in reliable sources ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus hard to read consensus here even after discounting those silly OMG 34 years, keep votes. Jaranda wat's sup 02:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Jaranda wat's sup 02:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vanity artacle about someone who doesn't seem to be notable. If you look up the history you can see that its virtually all been done by User:Brookie - all the other contributions seem to be people tidying up rather than adding their own knowledge. Looking into it further, it would seem that the subject of the artacle is Brookie's father - if you look at this page User:Brookie/Wiki connections, Arthur Marshman is listed under "People I am related to" and "Entries with a family connection" - there is also a photo on this page of the church where Brookie got married, and the same photo of the same page is on the Arthur Marshman artacle as "where he (and one of his sons) were married" so I'm pretty 100% sure that this is Brookie's own father we are talking about.
As an aside, putting "and one of his sons" into the artacle is a bit of a sneaky way to list yourself in an artacle! I've tried looking up Arthur Marshman on google and there are under a thousand hits, and all of these seem to be either different people with the same name or artacles on other sites which actually copy the data from this very same wikipeida artacle. So on top of being a vanity artacle I don't think this is a very noteworthy person for an artacle.
It says in the artacle that he founded a company which was at one time about 40 years ago the biggest architectgs in UK, but I can't find any evidence of this and it has been tagged as "fact" and if
you look back through the history you can see that twice before this tag has been inserted, and instead of providing the facts to back this up BROOKIE HAS JUST TAKEN THE TAG AWAY AND HOPED THAT NO-ONE WOULD NOTICE. On one ocasion he (or she, but I think its a he as the Arthur Marsham artacle says one of his sons got married at that church, and this seems to be Brookie) has even had the audacity to put in his edit summary that was he did was to "tidy" when what he was doing was taking out the "fact" tag without providing any evidence! That's really out of order behaviour, and Brookie is an administrator who should know better. Here is what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Marshman&diff=135997584&oldid=135875208 and it suggests that he has no evidence, its just what has been told to him through family hearsay. BonzoBabe 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, and another thing. The only source which tries to add any credibility is the link at the bottom to this page: http://www.worldhouseinfo.com/ This page would seem to be set up by Brookie although I have no proof for this, but it really badly skews its attempt to define what a house is by massively focusing on the very house designed by Arthur Marshman, using the same photo as on this page, and all the info about other houses seems to have been taken from wikipedia, and its run from a gmail address, and the whole site seems to serve no purpose other than to provide alleged credence for the Arthur Marshman article. BonzoBabe 21:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I'm getting to the bottom of the odd worldhouseinfo.com article - its actually been lifted from an old version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House&oldid=10525932 of a wikipedia page in which Brookie had added details of Arthur Marshman's "cheese house" to the house page. This has obviously been removed since, but Brookie has then added a link to the Arthur Marshman artacle to a page which has been created using an old version of a wikipedia page on which he had "bigged up" Arthur Marshman's cheese house. All very silly. BonzoBabe 22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Marshman's work is interesting, but that's not the criterion here. I can find just one article in NewBank referring to him: a 2001 property section piece in the Sunday Times about Horton Rounds being up for sale. That really isn't enough. Gordonofcartoon 18:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is poorly referenced with some dubious claims and lacks notablity tagged since October 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability and CoI WebHamster 21:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability suitable for iMDB but not for an encyclopaedia article and as the article is self-penned there's a distinct possibility of CoI. WebHamster 21:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 01:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Guerrilla advertising for a book and a brewery. If it can be shown that the word had this usage in the 20th century let alone the 19th, then I would change to "weak keep". (I have restored all previous versions. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furtling had a "weak keep" result but the article was deleted a few days later as an expired prod.) -- RHaworth 20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furtling is probably a hoax. Silver Burton's book is the only source of the ref in Encyclopaedia of Unusual Sex Practices. Burton is the author of Kokigami, which describes the art of wrapping the penis in paper costumes, and Why Cats Paint: A Theory of Feline Aesthetics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.35 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This word is simply UK slang for "fiddling around": eg "furtling around for change in my pocket." This article appears to be based on a joke from a humorous book, no other ref except the Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, which simply repeats the definition given in the book verbatim. -- The Anome 17:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged as speedy for nonsense, but doesn't qualify so I took it off the chopping block. I'm bringing it to you, the kind people, to decide this one. I would have PROD'd it, but it is actively being worked on. the_undertow talk 20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to the school distrit mentioned. I'd say merge but what's at the district is what's at the article. Wizardman 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
notability-this article has not seen significant changes for two years since its last review, essentially another "this elementary school does the basic things an elementary school is supposed to do." Wikipedia is not a list of everything Chris 20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 14:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and in-universe perspective. This article is about a fictional character from the movie The Karate Kid. Does not meet WP:FICT and portions are Patent Nonsense. Clubjuggle 20:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding header to incomplete nomination. Seattlenow 20:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete.--cj | talk 02:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NewOS does not have significant coverage to pass the notability guidelines. Searching for NewOS only finds links that aren't 3rd party or are trivial. The only assertion of notability the article claims (note that it or anything else in the article isn't cited) is that it was created by former Be engineer Travis Geiselbrecht, who himself doesn't appear notable enough for an article. This article isn't objective which is why I also feel it is nothing but self-promotion and an ad. --Android Mouse 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a recent flood of articles about small-time Filipino writers and academics. This one is making a notability assertion, however... humblefool® 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of subject TorstenGuise 19:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as copy-and-paste duplicate of older existing article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate. Copy and paste from an older article "List of war apology statements issued by Japan." --Saintjust 18:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eeyore's Tale of the Missing Tail / Pooh, Light up My Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Apparently an episode from "My friends Tigger and Pooh" although there's nothing that states that its from that show on the article itself. All it is is a brief plot summary that could probably be merged with the main page if necessary. There's very little other information and only one category. CyberGhostface 18:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Wtshymanski 18:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable label that fails to establish notability Lugnuts 17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete and salt. Repost of same nonsense. -- RHaworth 18:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of previously speedied nonsense. Fabrictramp 17:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory or dictonary. The page is fancruft also. Davnel03 17:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion:
There's lots more than just these, so expect me to add some more.
The result was speedied android79 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded and potentially huge list Kww 17:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with Another World opening sequence and closing credits, the notability of the program does not confer notability on every aspect of the show. There are no reliable sources attesting that this topic is notable. Otto4711 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Android79, short article with no context.
Kappa 02:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially huge, but inherently inappropriate list Kww 17:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Prod removed by editor saying he'd be back in 24 hours to work on the article; that was almost two weeks ago. Otto4711 17:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion but some notability is asserted. Blogger and podcaster. Am also submitting for deletion the related article Art for Spastics about the podcast in question. History suggests a conflict of interest and the tone of the article is fairly promotional. No third-party references provided. Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article as it stands now has only the "mainstream media attention" it has gotten -- a large Norway newspaper and a blog -- and the same information already available in the Creation Museum article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as Speedy, I think it's borderline. Bringing here. humblefool® 16:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can these be used as references to help demonstrate the notability of the Unicorn Museum website? Let me know and I'll make any necessary changes. Thanks User:TWIS 20:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit] Additional images
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was Keep, nom withdrawn with no votes. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on non-notable company created by sockpuppet of banned user--Mantanmoreland 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn. My apologies. Was mistaken as to editing history. --Mantanmoreland 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This club only barely makes an assertion of notability when it says "The Club has been accused of being shrouded in myth and noteriety since its establishment.(sic)"
This sounds like a rather small club, the only source given does not mention the club. The group is mentioned on directory sites and a few other smaller references. I don't think this passes our notability standards. This had a CSD tag that I removed. Until(1 == 2) 13:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published novel. No apparent press or other indication of notability. Prod tag removed with comments indicating the novel is notable for its predictive properties, but links provided as verification do not mention the novel, making this original research. Recommend deletion. SiobhanHansa 12:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Self published Non-Notable. Shoessss | Chat 13:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Mantanmoreland 15:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rationale : 1) book was launched at and remains on sale at a reputable chain of bookstores in the author's home territory; 2) the book was reviewed/author interviewed by a national newspaper in Hong Kong; 3) the book was reviewed/author interviewed by a national radio station in Hong Kong; 4) the book was reviewed/author interviewed by a regional newspaper in UK; 5) the book is aknowledged as potentially leading to a copycat hoax incident in New Zealand; 6) the book has been reviewed/commented on by former UK government minister; 7) the assumption that self-published = not notable is invalid. Links to all these items are included on the revised article. The above satisfies the criteria for regional notability. NB I am the author of the article.Drpig39 05:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article, which amazingly is nearly three years old, refers to a single mention of a term in one line of a Red Hot Chili Peppers song. Seems mostly to be supposition about what the term means and its context in the song, I haven't managed to find any verification of its contents. Canley 11:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE - Nabla 11:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website that has nothing to assert any possibility of improvement. Its claimed references in a magazine are nothing more than small credits at the bottom of a page that used sprites, which is nothing short of trivial. TTN 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete the page! Heck, many websites have Wikipedia pages!!
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prods. Non notable terms, and the wording of both articles is like an advertisement. I removed a link to iTunes from Christmasology -- lucasbfr talk 11:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted (band was speedied 10 days ago). Pascal.Tesson 23:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was contested without any rationale, concern was "album by (apparently) non-notable band". I still stand by this, as the band who wrote the album have no Wikipedia article. - Zeibura (Talk) 11:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to White House. Some content has already been merged, it seems. --- RockMFR 05:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This information is too trivial and not notable, Wikipedia is not a directory. T Rex | talk 09:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is trivial/non notable as well.:
The result was delete. Singularity 01:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. fails WP:ATT for attribution, has weak sources and valid CSDa7 Leonardobonanni 09:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Linux distribution, no evidence of third party coverage. At least it's free of SCOX proprietary IP. MER-C 09:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Ryan Serrant, Cuss, Crossley, Smith & Darville, Nomination withdrawn for Carl Serrant & Grant. — Caknuck 14:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Player has made no fully professional appearances therefore doesn't qualify for an article as per the notability requirements on the Football WikiProject
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Speedy keep Carl Serrant (has played for Newcastle!) and Gareth Grant; both have played professionally. Mattythewhite 08:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 01:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems completely non-notable. humblefool® 07:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasspeedy closed Luna Santin (talk · contribs) suggestion was in response to the article being WP:CSD#G11 spam. This article has been the subject of an on going edit war 4 AfD nominations and at least 6 CSD tags inside 10 days. It has also been subject to 4 other AFD nominations prior to this round of edit warring. Its also difficult to AGF the nomination by an editor new to this page today (11 Aug). Gnangarra 10:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite weeks to change the text no attempt has been made to clean up the advertising. This is being taken to AFD as recommended by Luna Santin. Fundie Busters 06:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If weak deleted there should be some mention in the article that Railpage is a commercial venture. Railpage seems intertwined with its owner [14]. I have asked other users to provide evidence for Railpage "non commercial status" [15]. To this date they have not.
Asking for "donations" by a commercial organization like Railpage Australia [16] , is technically a "voluntary payment for service". There is no transparent disclosure process where the donated money actually goes, and any "donations" would be classified as income generated by Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd [17] and subject to tax. I have even tried to compromise, stating "Commercial - Yes, Free membership, Voluntary payment for service"[18]. If a weak delete is supported the box in the top right hand corner should be edited as follows.[19]
Tezza1 08:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A clear case of Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This is a non-notable, virtually anonymous website with a Wikipedia entry seems to be nothing more than an advertisement the site. GHcool 06:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was early closure and delete—clear example of WP:SNOW. — Deckiller 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 05:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 02:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original AfD for this article proved very controversial. Stated briefly, many members of the Wikipedia Mathematics community felt deprived of the opportunity to share their views and expertise in the discussion. DRV determined that a relisting was in order to satisfy those concerns. Deletion is on the table here (as many feel the article violates WP:NOT), as are creative solutions (merging, etc.) that might make use of the content in a different way. Xoloz 03:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and then either refactor into the main article or keep depending on the substance of what remains. --Cronholm144 05:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much of those comments apply to this article in its current state. I will note though that many of the seemingly trivial examples are nothing of the sort, and many are not mentioned in the article on the subject. That is something that should be done (importing the examples and their references outwards if the article is deleted). The article has also greatly expanded on the list by Jim Reeds (which says it was last updated in 2000), and both lists would be fertile ground for anyone wanting to submit a paper to The Journal of Popular Culture... (I know, that's no argument for keeping it on Wikipedia). Anyway, back to searching out more details and verifying what is there, before looking for sourced commentary to justify it (the last part). Carcharoth 10:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]"What is wrong with this page: 1. It relies too much on WWW documents; 2. It relies too little on the printed word; 3. It should have a citation for each decade between Eddington and the present, instead of a zillion silly citations from the last year or two."
The result was Nomination withdrawn.. Navou banter 06:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how this satisfies notability. Disclosure: I placed a CSD A7 tag earlier. Navou banter 02:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers 03:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR. Google search comes up with zero references to such a technology, and indeed, the article itself says it is an "idea" for future space travel. The entire article discusses the concept in terms of "future" (lab tests would have the object...). Google search for "Light Bubble Space Travel" returns only Wikipedia articles. It is as yet, untested from what I can see, unverifiable, and no references since July. If indeed it is real, I'm sure the news will cover it, when that time comes. In the mean time, perhaps this is closer to a CSD issue, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Ariel♥Gold 02:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Ariel♥Gold 02:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
herga derga —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.164.16 (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax movie company. IMDB comes up blank for the movies listed here. ~ Infrangible 02:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as blatant vandalism. android79 01:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious attempt at a humoristic article. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Enzo Aquarius 01:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-appearing fictional character. Originally this material appeared when an anon IP simply replaced the material at James Spaulding with this. When I discovered it I separated out the histories, as you can see here. But I think this one should be considered for deletion anyway. Chick Bowen 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. You guys say "there needs to be something here eventually" yet I see no proof or reason of that. It's only two sentences anyway, and I doubt anyone will type this in in hopes of getting there. You're welcome to develop the article at the town, but there's pretty much nothing to merge, so I'm using the policies of notability over what appears to be consensus here.Wizardman 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Average middle school in South Dakota with no assertion of notability, except presumably the deprecated idea that middle schools are inherently notable Nyttend 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:N or WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an average church in North Dakota. Nyttend 01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable - no external sources included to show notability TheIslander 01:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 23:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, Google Search returns on Wiki results. PEAR (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 01:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Band is not notable. No assertion of notability. Only links are to band webpage and myspace page. No external sources, no verifiability. Created by spamgle purpose account. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A checklist of cards collectible in a video game. (Note that none of these are characters in this game; they're characters in other games, appearing only as inanimate cards in these games.) This is a game guide, something Wikipedia is not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by the nomination; lists per WP:CSD#G7 per author's request instead. Non-admin close. --Haemo 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poorly-written article of non-encyclopedic information. --Ratiocinate (t • c) 00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 01:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete absence of encyclopedic content. POV-written. No assertion of notability whatsoever. Húsönd 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
contested speedy, would likely be contested prod as well. Asserts that one band formerly signed with them has gone on to (some modicum of) notability. That doesn't make this label notable, and then per WP:MUSIC any of their past or current bands that have 2 albums issued by these guys get instant notability too. Also fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect; nom withdrawn. Singularity 04:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very good description for this character is offered on the List of characters from Family Guy, but a one episode character certainly doesn't need their own article.Saget53 00:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 01:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as speedy but does make an assertion of notability. Listed here to decide if it's enough Daniel Case 02:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 03:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced. I don't even know if you could source most any of this stuff. Filled to the gills with dubious "clues" such as the assertion that "if a mirror is placed horizontally across the flowers [on the cover of St. Pepper] that spell "BEATLES", a message can be seen that seems to say "BENICE3." What BENICE3 has to do with Paul McCartney's supposed death, I don't know, but the article is a haven for uncourced crap like that. Weasel words like "could be" and "have been suggested to be" abound. Half of the clues contradict each other, then fall all over themselves trying to rectify the contradictions. Was he high on LSD? Was he distracted by a pretty girl? Maybe he was distracted by a pretty girl on LSD! No one knows, but this article has "clues" for every possible interpretation. The absolute gem - a veritable diamond of ridiculous - of the article's clues regards a picture from the liner notes of Magical Mystery Tour - "if the viewer holds it sideways and squints, it appears to be the image of a crushed skull." Does this crap really belong in Wikipedia? ♠PMC♠ 04:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So what is Wikipedia going to do with other unsourced urban legends? Porterjoh 09:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Better move fast then. Start with the Hotel California Satanist rumours...Porterjoh 10:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 02:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Individual was the subject of a prior AFD and deleted at that time. Since then, the only thing that has happened is a revelation that he was arrested but not charged with a sexual assault in 1998 and recently arrested on a similar charge. The bottom line (and sad commentary on society) is that there are hundreds if not thousands of sexual offenders arrested every day. Being arrested doesn't make them notable. Subject was a minor political activist before and resigned from the only office that even had a snowball's chance of making him notable, Chair of the Young Republicans. Montco 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The language appears to be non-notable to the point that it would be impossible to find reliable secondary-source information about it, because no such sources appear to exist. A search for it at the ACM digital library turned up nothing that I could find. No wikipedia article links to it, except for trivialities like "list of programming languages". There are no Google search results for it except for the project's own web pages and copies of the WP article. The ferite-users mailing list has seen no traffic since early 2006 and has fewer than 80 messages in the five years before that. Dominus 20:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close, nom withdrawn, non-admin close. Panoptical 01:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is really so short, it should be integrated into the Free Software Foundation's page. All it is is a sentence and 2 pictures. Panoptical 22:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[54] [55] [56] Carlosguitar 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Batman: The Animated Series episodes. Jaranda wat's sup 23:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not receive any independent sources devoted to this episode and therefore, is not notable. Suggest merge and redirect. Panoptical 22:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 03:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much what the article's title says it is - it's a guide on how to climb a particular mountain. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor is it a how-to guide. I should note that we cannot transwiki to Wikitravel, and I doubt Wikibooks would accept this. Coredesat 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]